Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Saguaro ... - USGS
Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Saguaro ... - USGS
Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Saguaro ... - USGS
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Powell, Halvorson, Schmidt <strong>Vascular</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Vertebrate</strong> <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District<br />
Open-File Report 2006-1075<br />
In Cooperation with the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources<br />
<strong>Vascular</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Vertebrate</strong> <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District<br />
Southwest Biological Science Center<br />
Open-File Report 2006-1075<br />
November 2006<br />
U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
U.S. Geological Survey<br />
National Park Service
In cooperation with the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources<br />
<strong>Vascular</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Vertebrate</strong> <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District<br />
Edited by Brian F. Powell, William L. Halvorson, <strong>and</strong> Cecilia A. Schmidt<br />
Open-File Report 2006-1075<br />
November 2006<br />
U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
U.S. Geological Survey<br />
National Park Service<br />
<strong>USGS</strong> Southwest Biological Science Center<br />
Sonoran Desert Research Station<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources<br />
125 Biological Sciences East<br />
Tucson, Arizona 85721
U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior<br />
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary<br />
U.S. Geological Survey<br />
Mark Myers, Director<br />
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006<br />
For product <strong>and</strong> ordering information:<br />
World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod<br />
Telephone: 1-888-ASK-<strong>USGS</strong><br />
For more information on the <strong>USGS</strong>-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural <strong>and</strong> living<br />
resources, natural hazards, <strong>and</strong> the environment:<br />
World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov<br />
Telephone: 1-888-ASK-<strong>USGS</strong><br />
Suggested Citation<br />
Powell, B. F, W. L. Halvorson, <strong>and</strong> C. A. Schmidt. <strong>Vascular</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Vertebrate</strong> <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District. OFR 2006-1075. U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological<br />
Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research Station, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson, AZ.<br />
Cover photo: Rincon Creek (left); Sonoran Desertscrub with Tanque Verde ridge in the background<br />
(right). Photograph by Greg Lev<strong>and</strong>owski.<br />
Any use <strong>of</strong> trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only <strong>and</strong> does not imply<br />
endorsement by the U.S. Government.<br />
ii<br />
Printed on recycled paper
Editors <strong>and</strong> Authors Authors<br />
Brian F. Powell <strong>and</strong> Cecilia A. Schmidt Aaron D. Flesch<br />
School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources<br />
125 Biological Sciences East, Building 43 325 Biological Sciences East, Building 43<br />
The University <strong>of</strong> Arizona The University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
Tucson, AZ 85721 Tucson, AZ 85721<br />
William L. Halvorson Don E. Swann<br />
<strong>USGS</strong> SBSC Sonoran Desert Research Station <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
125 Biological Sciences East, Building 43 3693 South Old Spanish Trail<br />
The University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Tucson, AZ 85730<br />
Tucson, AZ 85721<br />
U.S. Geological SBSC Survey Sonoran Desert Research Station Personnel<br />
Charles van Riper III, Station Leader<br />
William L. Halvorson, Research Ecologist<br />
Cecil R. Schwalbe, Ecologist<br />
Michael R. Kunzmann, Ecologist (Emeritus)<br />
Kathryn Thomas, Ecologist<br />
Pamela Nagler, Physical Scientist<br />
Phil Rosen, Ecologist<br />
Program <strong>and</strong> Expertise Areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>USGS</strong> <strong>and</strong> UA Personnel<br />
Administration & Outreach<br />
Jennifer Meador<br />
Wendy Parrish<br />
Emily Sherbrooke<br />
Charles van Riper III<br />
Avian Ecology<br />
Claire Crow<br />
Glenn Johnson<br />
Chris O’Brien<br />
Brian Powell<br />
Charles van Riper III<br />
Data Management<br />
Brent Sigafus<br />
Ecology <strong>of</strong> Amphibians & Reptiles<br />
Kevin Baker<br />
Cristina Jones<br />
Dave Prival<br />
Phil Rosen<br />
Cecil Schwalbe<br />
Brent Sigafus<br />
Fire Management<br />
Dennis Suhre<br />
Cori Dolan<br />
James Feldmann<br />
Bill Halvorson<br />
Invasive Species Research<br />
Patricia Guertin<br />
Jim Malusa<br />
Phil Rosen<br />
Cecil Schwalbe<br />
Brent Sigafus<br />
Dennis Suhre<br />
Kathryn Thomas<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> & Monitoring<br />
Patricia Guertin<br />
Bill Halvorson<br />
Pamela Nagler<br />
Brian Powell<br />
Cecilia Schmidt<br />
Vegetation Mapping & Ecology<br />
Patricia Guertin<br />
Bill Halvorson<br />
Jim Malusa<br />
Kathryn Thomas<br />
<strong>USGS</strong> Southwest Biological Science Center http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov<br />
<strong>USGS</strong> Southwest Biological Science Center, Sonoran Desert Research Station http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/sdrs<br />
iii
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents<br />
Report Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xi<br />
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................. xiii<br />
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................xv<br />
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Inventories...............................................................................................1<br />
Project Overview...................................................................................................................................1<br />
Rerport Format <strong>and</strong> Data Organization .................................................................................................2<br />
Verification <strong>and</strong> Assessment <strong>of</strong> Results ................................................................................................3<br />
Sampling Design ...................................................................................................................................4<br />
Chapter 2: Park Overview..........................................................................................................................7<br />
Park Area <strong>and</strong> History ...........................................................................................................................7<br />
Natural Resources Overview.................................................................................................................7<br />
Natural Resource Management Issues.................................................................................................12<br />
Chapter 3: <strong>Plant</strong> <strong>Inventory</strong> .....................................................................................................................15<br />
Previous <strong>and</strong> Ongoing Research..........................................................................................................15<br />
Methods ...............................................................................................................................................15<br />
Results .................................................................................................................................................19<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness ......................................................................................................................21<br />
Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................23<br />
Chapter 4: Amphibian <strong>and</strong> Reptile <strong>Inventory</strong>.......................................................................................27<br />
Previous Research ...............................................................................................................................27<br />
Methods ...............................................................................................................................................27<br />
Results .................................................................................................................................................32<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness ......................................................................................................................40<br />
Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................40<br />
Chapter 5: Bird <strong>Inventory</strong>.......................................................................................................................45<br />
Previous Research ...............................................................................................................................45<br />
Methods ...............................................................................................................................................45<br />
Results .................................................................................................................................................52<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness ......................................................................................................................57<br />
Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................62<br />
Chapter 6: Mammal <strong>Inventory</strong> ...............................................................................................................69<br />
Previous <strong>and</strong> Ongoing Research..........................................................................................................69<br />
Methods ...............................................................................................................................................69<br />
Results .................................................................................................................................................78<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness ......................................................................................................................81<br />
Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................84<br />
Chapter 7: Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................89<br />
v
List <strong>of</strong> Tables<br />
Table 1. Summary <strong>of</strong> vascular plant <strong>and</strong> vertebrate inventories at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 1999–2005. ..................................................................................................xv<br />
Table 1.1. Museums that were queried in 1998 for vertebrate voucher specimens with “Arizona” <strong>and</strong><br />
“<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park” <strong>and</strong> “National Monument” in the collection location.........................3<br />
Table 2.1. Average monthly climate data for Manning Camp (high elevation), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 1994–2004........................................................................................9<br />
Table 2.2. Average monthly climate data for the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona (low elevation; the closest climate<br />
monitoring station to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District) 1894–2004...............9<br />
Table 4.1. Characteristics <strong>of</strong> three major active survey methods used during surveys for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002..........................................27<br />
Table 4.2. Herpet<strong>of</strong>aunal survey effort by year, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2002....................................................................................................................................29<br />
Table 4.3. Environmental factors considered when modeling variation in relative abundance <strong>of</strong> species<br />
<strong>and</strong> species groups <strong>and</strong> species richness <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna, using stepwise multiple linear<br />
regression, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .....................30<br />
Table 4.4. Number <strong>of</strong> animals <strong>and</strong> species detected per hour during herpet<strong>of</strong>aunal surveys by year <strong>and</strong><br />
survey method, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ...............33<br />
Table 4.5. Relative abundance (mean + SE; no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during intensive surveys<br />
in spring (9 April – 24 May) along focal point-transects by elevation strata, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001. ...................................................................................34<br />
Table 4.6. Relative abundance (mean + SE; no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during intensive surveys<br />
along r<strong>and</strong>om transects (n = 7) surveyed in both spring (9 April – 8 May) <strong>and</strong> summer (18 –<br />
31 July), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001...........................................35<br />
Table 4.7. Environmental factors that explained relative abundance (no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> species (with >15<br />
observations), species groups, <strong>and</strong> species richness <strong>of</strong> lizards <strong>and</strong> snakes detected during<br />
intensive surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, spring 2001. ................36<br />
Table 4.8. Relative abundance (mean + SE; no./10 hrs) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during extensive<br />
surveys (n = 85), by elevation strata, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2002. .................................................................................................................................37<br />
Table 4.9. Relative abundance (no./hr) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during road surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.......................................................................38<br />
Table 5.1. Characteristics <strong>of</strong> the three major VCP survey types for birds, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ...........................................................................................46<br />
Table 5.2. Summary <strong>of</strong> bird survey effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001–<br />
2003. ........................................................................................................................................49<br />
Table 5.3. Bird measures by community type <strong>and</strong> compared using Tukey-Kramer multiple pairwise<br />
procedure, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .....................54<br />
Table 5.4. Relative abundance (mean + SD) by community type for birds recorded during repeat-visit<br />
VCP surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ................55<br />
Table 5.5. Mean relative abundance <strong>of</strong> birds from reconnaissance VCP surveys by strata <strong>and</strong> transect,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2002..........................................................58<br />
Table 5.6. Relative abundance (mean + SE) <strong>of</strong> birds from line-transect surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2002 <strong>and</strong> 2003................................................................................60<br />
Table 5.7. Mean relative abundance <strong>of</strong> birds from nocturnal surveys by elevation strata <strong>and</strong> transect,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002..........................................61<br />
vi
Table 5.8. Number <strong>of</strong> breeding behavior observations for birds from all survey types, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ....................................................................61<br />
Table 6.1. Summary <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ........................................................................................................................72<br />
Table 6.2. Summary <strong>of</strong> infrared-triggered camera effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 1999–2005. ................................................................................................................77<br />
Table 6.3. Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> small mammals by strata <strong>and</strong> site type (R = r<strong>and</strong>om [focal-point<br />
transects]; NR = non-r<strong>and</strong>om), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong><br />
2002. ........................................................................................................................................79<br />
Table 6.4. Results <strong>of</strong> netting for bats, by elevation strata, site, <strong>and</strong> visit, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ...........................................................................................80<br />
Table 6.5. Number <strong>of</strong> photographs <strong>of</strong> mammals from infrared-triggered photography by elevation strata,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 1999 – 2005..............................................81<br />
vii
List <strong>of</strong> Figures<br />
Figure 1.1. Layout <strong>of</strong> 1-km focal-point transects showing layout <strong>of</strong> amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile plots (C),<br />
small-mammal trapping grids (D), <strong>and</strong> bird survey stations (E).................................................5<br />
Figure 2.1. Location <strong>of</strong> the two districts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park in southern Arizona. ...........................8<br />
Figure 2.2. Aerial photograph showing major features <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District.........................................................................................................................................9<br />
Figure 2.3. Comparison <strong>of</strong> monthly weather data during the time <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the inventory effort<br />
(2001–2003) compared to the mean (1994–2004 for Manning Camp, 1894–2004 for<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona; thick solid line in all figures), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park.. .......................10<br />
Figure 2.4. Diagram <strong>of</strong> the major vegetation communities <strong>of</strong> the Santa Catalina Mountains, adjacent to<br />
the Rincon Mountains (from Whittaker <strong>and</strong> Niering 1965). ...................................................11<br />
Figure 3.1. Locations <strong>of</strong> general botanizing collection sites, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.............................................................................................................17<br />
Figure 3.2. Layout <strong>of</strong> a modified-Whittaker plot, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001...........................................................................................................................................17<br />
Figure 3.3. Locations <strong>of</strong> modified-Whittaker plots <strong>and</strong> point-intercept transects (line transect), <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001........................................................................18<br />
Figure 3.4. Typical layout <strong>of</strong> point-intercept transects, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001...........................................................................................................................................18<br />
Figure 3.5. Summary (mean + SD) <strong>of</strong> data from point-intercept transects by community type <strong>and</strong> height<br />
class, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001................................................21<br />
Figure 3.6. Percent (mean + SD) ground cover from point-intercept transects by community type,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001..........................................................22<br />
Figure 4.1. Layout <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna survey plots along focal-point transects, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001. .............................................................................................28<br />
Figure 4.2. Locations <strong>of</strong> intensive <strong>and</strong> extensive survey sites for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002................................................................................29<br />
Figure 4.3. Species accumulation curve for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .........................................................................................39<br />
Figure 5.1. Locations <strong>of</strong> VCP survey stations (r<strong>and</strong>om [focal-point transects], non-r<strong>and</strong>om, <strong>and</strong><br />
reconnaissance), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .............47<br />
Figure 5.2. Location <strong>of</strong> section breaks for non-breeding season (winter) bird transects <strong>and</strong> nocturnal<br />
survey stations, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ...............48<br />
Figure 5.3. Dendrogram <strong>of</strong> bird community groups from Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis, <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .....................................................53<br />
Figure 5.4. Species accumulation curve for all survey methods for birds, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .........................................................................................63<br />
Figure 6.1. Layout <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping grids along focal-point transects, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, 2001. ..............................................................................................................................70<br />
Figure 6.2. Detailed layout <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping grids at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .......................................................................................................................70<br />
Figure 6.3. Locations <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om (focal-point transect) small-mammal trapping sites, pitfall traps for<br />
shrews, <strong>and</strong> bat trapping stations, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ..........................................................................................................................71<br />
Figure 6.4. Locations <strong>of</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om small-mammal trapping sites, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ...........................................................................................72<br />
viii
Figure 6.5. Locations <strong>of</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om infrared-triggered cameras, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2000-2005...................................................................................................75<br />
Figure 6.6. Locations <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om infrared-triggered cameras, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 2000-2005. ..................................................................................................................76<br />
Figure 6.7. Example <strong>of</strong> three-camera placement at one <strong>of</strong> the r<strong>and</strong>om points, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .............................................................................76<br />
Figure 6.8. Typical configuration for an active infrared-triggered camera system. .................................77<br />
Figure 6.9. Species accumulation curve for small-mammal trapping by elevation stratum, <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. .....................................................82<br />
Figure 6.10. Species accumulation curve for bat trapping, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ..........................................................................................................82<br />
Figure 6.11. Species accumulation curve for infrared-triggered cameras, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 1999-2005. ................................................................................................83<br />
ix
List <strong>of</strong> Appendices<br />
Appendix A. List <strong>of</strong> plant species that were observed (O) or collected (X) at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District. .......................................................................................................99<br />
Appendix B. List <strong>of</strong> amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile species observed or documented at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District by UA inventory personnel (total number <strong>of</strong> observations; 2001-<br />
2002) or by other survey efforts or lists. ...............................................................................129<br />
Appendix C. List <strong>of</strong> bird species observed at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District by UA<br />
inventory personnel (2001-2003) or by other survey efforts or lists. ....................................131<br />
Appendix D. Number <strong>of</strong> observations <strong>of</strong> mammal species by University <strong>of</strong> Arizona <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park <strong>Inventory</strong> personnel by survey type, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002 (small mammals, bats, <strong>and</strong> observations <strong>of</strong> all taxa) <strong>and</strong> 1999-2005 (infraredtriggered<br />
photography). .........................................................................................................137<br />
Appendix E. <strong>Vertebrate</strong> specimen <strong>and</strong> photograph vouchers collected by University <strong>of</strong> Arizona or park<br />
personnel, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 1997–2002. .........................139<br />
Appendix F. List <strong>of</strong> existing voucher specimens collected prior to this inventory effort. .....................142<br />
Appendix G. Mean frequency <strong>of</strong> detection <strong>of</strong> birds, by community type <strong>and</strong> transect, recorded during<br />
repeat-visit VCP surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ......................................................................................................................146<br />
Appendix H. Mean density (number <strong>of</strong> stems/hectare) <strong>of</strong> large trees <strong>and</strong> potential cavity-bearing plants at<br />
non-r<strong>and</strong>om, repeat-visit VCP stations, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. ...................................................................................................................... 151<br />
Appendix I. Details <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.........................................................................................................................152<br />
Appendix J. Summary <strong>of</strong> field effort for bats, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2002. ...............................................................................................................................152<br />
Appendix K. Details <strong>of</strong> infrared-triggered camera effort <strong>and</strong> results, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 1999-2005. ..............................................................................................153<br />
x
Report Dedication<br />
Eric Wells Albrecht<br />
1970-2004<br />
This report, as others in the series, is dedicated to Eric’s life <strong>and</strong> work; he was an extraordinary ecologist,<br />
community member, father, partner, <strong>and</strong> friend. Eric was co-coordinator <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
(UA) biological inventory <strong>and</strong> monitoring program from 2002 until his sudden <strong>and</strong> unexpected death on<br />
September 20, 2004. Eric was near completion <strong>of</strong> his MS degree in Wildlife Conservation from the UA,<br />
which was awarded posthumously in November 2004. In his last year, Eric spearheaded projects to<br />
investigate the efficiency <strong>of</strong> current monitoring programs; he was passionate about using the best<br />
available information to guide vertebrate monitoring efforts in the region. He is survived by his partner,<br />
Kathy Moore, <strong>and</strong> their two young children, Elizabeth <strong>and</strong> Zachary. We hope that the lives <strong>of</strong> his<br />
children will be enriched by Eric’s hard work on behalf <strong>of</strong> the national parks in the Sonoran Desert<br />
Network.<br />
Don Swann dedicates the mammal chapter to Lowell Sumner for his elegant study <strong>of</strong> mammals in<br />
the Rincon Mountains in 1950-1951 <strong>and</strong> for his life-long dedication to biological research in U.S.<br />
National Parks; <strong>and</strong> to Russell Davis <strong>and</strong> Ronnie Sidner for their significant <strong>and</strong> on-going contributions to<br />
our underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> mammals in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park.<br />
xi
xii
Acknowledgements<br />
Thanks to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park Superintendent Sarah Craighead, Chief <strong>of</strong> Science <strong>and</strong><br />
Resource Management Meg Weesner, <strong>and</strong> biologists Natasha Kline <strong>and</strong> Don Swann for providing<br />
leadership <strong>and</strong> administrative support for this project. Other park staff who assisted our project<br />
included Matt Daniels, Mark Holden, Bob Lineback, Todd Nelson, Kathy Schon, Mike Ward,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Jim Williams. This project was funded by the National Park Service (NPS) <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Monitoring program (I&M) <strong>and</strong> resulted from the collaboration <strong>of</strong> many people at the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Arizona (UA), NPS, <strong>and</strong> U.S. Geological Survey (<strong>USGS</strong>). Administration <strong>of</strong> the project was<br />
facilitated by the Desert Southwest <strong>and</strong> Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units<br />
(CESUs). The Southern Arizona Office <strong>of</strong> the NPS assisted with the development <strong>of</strong> the original<br />
study plan that led directly to initiation <strong>of</strong> this project. Additional support (monetary <strong>and</strong> inkind)<br />
for infrared-triggered photography was provided by the Western National Parks Association,<br />
Friends <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, <strong>and</strong> the UA Undergraduate Biology Internship Program.<br />
Andy Hubbard at the Sonoran Desert Network I&M program has been a great advocate<br />
<strong>of</strong> our program. He also provided funds for Don Swann to work on this report. Kathy Davis,<br />
Superintendent <strong>of</strong> Tuzigoot <strong>and</strong> Montezuma Castle national monuments played an instrumental<br />
role in this project by providing important early initiative. Larry Norris at the Desert Southwest<br />
CESU has provided strong support for our program <strong>and</strong> spent considerable time <strong>and</strong> effort<br />
providing clear <strong>and</strong> timely administrative assistance. Matt Goode, Don Swann, <strong>and</strong> Dale Turner<br />
provided much <strong>of</strong> the early planning for this project; we are indebted to their vision <strong>and</strong> work.<br />
Eric Albrecht, to whom this report is dedicated, was an outst<strong>and</strong>ing spokesperson <strong>and</strong> leader <strong>of</strong><br />
the program; he was an invaluable member <strong>of</strong> the team <strong>and</strong> his contributions are sorely missed.<br />
We thank a core group <strong>of</strong> dedicated field biologists who collected a wealth <strong>of</strong> data at<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park: Greta Anderson, Theresa DeKoker, Sky Jacobs, Shawn Lowery, Meg<br />
Quinn, Rene Tanner, Dale Turner, <strong>and</strong> Emily Willard (plants); Dan Bell, Kevin Bonine, James<br />
Borgmeyer, Matt Goode, Dave Prival, <strong>and</strong> Mike Wall (amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles); Eric Albrecht,<br />
Gavin Beiber, Aaron Flesch, Chris Kirkpatrick, <strong>and</strong> Gabe Martinez (birds); Clare Austin, Eric<br />
Albrecht, Mike Chehoski, Ryan Gann, Michael Olker, Neil Perry, Jason Schmidt, Ronnie Sidner,<br />
Mike Sotak, Albi von Dach, Michael Ward, <strong>and</strong> S<strong>and</strong>y Wolf (mammals). We are appreciative <strong>of</strong><br />
the following people, many <strong>of</strong> whom never ventured into the field, but whose work in the <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
made the field effort successful: Debbie Angell, Jennifer Brodsky, Chuck Conrad, Louise Conrad,<br />
Brian Cornelius, Taylor Edwards, Carianne Funicelli, Marina Hern<strong>and</strong>ez, Colleen McClain,<br />
Heather McClaren, Lindsay Norpel, Ryan Reese, Jill Rubio, Brent Sigafus, Taffy Sterpka, Jenny<br />
Treiber, Zuleika Valdez, Alesha Williams, <strong>and</strong> Erin Zylstra. Pam Anning, Kristen Beaupre, <strong>and</strong><br />
Matthew Daniels assisted with database design. Pam Anning also provided the maps for this<br />
report. Additional administrative support was provided by Valery Catt, Jenny Ferry, Andy<br />
Honaman, Terri Rice, <strong>and</strong> especially Cecily Westphal <strong>of</strong> the School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources at the<br />
UA. Special thanks to Pam Anning, Lisa Carder, <strong>and</strong> Kathleen Docherty for their years <strong>of</strong> hard<br />
work on all aspects <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />
Technical support was graciously provided by the following experts: Dan Austin,<br />
Michael Chamberl<strong>and</strong>, Phil Jenkins, <strong>and</strong> Charlotte <strong>and</strong> John Reeder at the UA Herbarium; Tom<br />
Huels <strong>of</strong> the UA ornithology collection; George Bradley <strong>of</strong> the UA herpetology collection; <strong>and</strong><br />
Yar Petryszyn <strong>and</strong> Melanie Bucci <strong>of</strong> the UA mammal collection. Thanks to Sharon Megdal <strong>and</strong><br />
Peter Wierenga, the current <strong>and</strong> former directors, respectively, <strong>of</strong> the UA Water Resources<br />
Research Center, <strong>and</strong> all their staff. Thanks to Mau-Crimmins et al. (2005) <strong>and</strong> Sprouse et al.<br />
(2002) for use <strong>of</strong> their background information on the park <strong>and</strong> Aaron Flesch (Flesch 2001) for<br />
use <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> his discussion in the mammal chapter. We received helpful reviews <strong>of</strong> earlier<br />
versions <strong>of</strong> this report from Danielle Foster, Natasha Kline, Jeff Lovich, Theressa Mau-<br />
Crimmins, Larry Norris, Cecil Schwalbe, Don Swann, <strong>and</strong> Meg Wessner.<br />
xiii
xiv
Executive Summary<br />
This report summarizes the results <strong>of</strong> the<br />
first comprehensive inventory <strong>of</strong> plants <strong>and</strong><br />
vertebrates at the Rincon Mountain District<br />
(RMD) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Arizona.<br />
From 2001 to 2003 we surveyed for vascular<br />
plants <strong>and</strong> vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles,<br />
birds, <strong>and</strong> mammals) at the district to document<br />
the presence <strong>of</strong> species within its boundaries.<br />
Park staff also surveyed for medium <strong>and</strong> large<br />
mammals using infrared-triggered cameras<br />
from 1999 to 2005. This report summarizes the<br />
methods <strong>and</strong> results <strong>of</strong> these two efforts. Our<br />
spatial sampling design was ambitious <strong>and</strong> was<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the first <strong>of</strong> its kind in the region to colocate<br />
study sites for vegetation <strong>and</strong> vertebrates<br />
using a stratified r<strong>and</strong>om design. We also chose<br />
the location <strong>of</strong> some study sites non-r<strong>and</strong>omly<br />
in areas that we thought would have the highest<br />
species richness. Because we used repeatable<br />
study designs <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ardized field methods,<br />
these inventories can serve as the first step in a<br />
biological monitoring program for the district.<br />
We also provide an important overview <strong>of</strong> most<br />
previous survey efforts in the district. We use<br />
data from our inventory <strong>and</strong> other surveys to<br />
compile species lists <strong>and</strong> to assess inventory<br />
completeness.<br />
With the exception <strong>of</strong> plants, our<br />
survey effort was the most comprehensive ever<br />
undertaken in the district. We recorded a total<br />
<strong>of</strong> 801 plant <strong>and</strong> vertebrate species, including<br />
50 species not previously found in the district<br />
(Table 1) <strong>of</strong> which five (all plants) are non-native<br />
species. Based on a review <strong>of</strong> our inventory <strong>and</strong><br />
past research at the district, there have been a<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 1,479 species <strong>of</strong> plants <strong>and</strong> vertebrates<br />
xv<br />
found there. We believe inventories for all<br />
taxonomic groups are nearly complete. In<br />
particular, the plant, amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile, <strong>and</strong><br />
mammal species lists are the most complete <strong>of</strong><br />
any comparably large natural area <strong>of</strong> the “sky<br />
isl<strong>and</strong>” region <strong>of</strong> southern Arizona <strong>and</strong> adjacent<br />
Mexico.<br />
For each taxon-specific chapter<br />
we discuss patterns <strong>of</strong> species richness <strong>and</strong><br />
environmental determinants <strong>of</strong> these patterns.<br />
For all groups except medium <strong>and</strong> large<br />
mammals, the low elevation stratum (
xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Inventories<br />
Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, <strong>and</strong> William L. Halvorson<br />
Project Overview<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong>: A point-in-time effort to document the<br />
resources present in an area.<br />
In the early 1990s, responding to criticism that<br />
it lacked basic knowledge <strong>of</strong> natural resources<br />
within parks, the National Park Service (NPS)<br />
initiated the <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>and</strong> Monitoring Program<br />
(I&M) to detect long-term changes in biological<br />
resources (NPS 1992a). At the time <strong>of</strong> the<br />
program’s inception, basic information, including<br />
lists <strong>of</strong> plants <strong>and</strong> animals, was absent or<br />
incomplete for most park units (Stohlgren et al.<br />
1995b).<br />
Species inventories have both direct <strong>and</strong><br />
indirect value for management <strong>of</strong> the park <strong>and</strong> are<br />
an important first step in long-term monitoring.<br />
Species lists are not only useful in resource<br />
interpretation <strong>and</strong> facilitating visitor appreciation<br />
<strong>of</strong> natural resources, but are also critical for<br />
making management decisions. Knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />
which species are present, particularly sensitive<br />
species, <strong>and</strong> where they occur provides for<br />
informed planning <strong>and</strong> decision-making (e.g.,<br />
locating new facilities). Thorough biological<br />
inventories provide a basis for choosing<br />
parameters to monitor <strong>and</strong> can provide baseline<br />
data for monitoring ecological populations <strong>and</strong><br />
communities. Inventories can also test sampling<br />
designs, field methods, <strong>and</strong> data collection<br />
protocols, <strong>and</strong> provide estimates <strong>of</strong> variation that<br />
are essential in prospective power analysis.<br />
Goals<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this study was to complete basic<br />
inventories for vascular plants <strong>and</strong> vertebrates<br />
at the Rincon Mountain District (RMD) <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. This effort was part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
larger biological inventory <strong>of</strong> eight NPS units in<br />
southern Arizona <strong>and</strong> southwestern New Mexico<br />
(Davis <strong>and</strong> Halvorson 2000, Powell et al. 2004,<br />
2005). Our goals were to:<br />
(1) Conduct field surveys to document at<br />
least 90% <strong>of</strong> all species <strong>of</strong> vascular plants<br />
1<br />
<strong>and</strong> vertebrates expected to occur at the<br />
district.<br />
(2) Use repeatable sampling designs <strong>and</strong><br />
survey methods that allow estimation<br />
<strong>of</strong> parameters <strong>of</strong> interest (e.g., relative<br />
abundance).<br />
(3) Compile historic occurrence data for all<br />
species <strong>of</strong> vascular plants <strong>and</strong> vertebrates<br />
from three sources: museum records<br />
(specimen vouchers), previous studies,<br />
<strong>and</strong> park records.<br />
(4) Create resources useful to park managers,<br />
including detailed species lists, maps<br />
<strong>of</strong> study sites, <strong>and</strong> high-quality digital<br />
images for use in resource interpretation<br />
<strong>and</strong> education.<br />
The bulk <strong>of</strong> our effort addressed the<br />
first two goals. To maximize efficiency (i.e., the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> species recorded by effort) we used<br />
field methods designed to detect multiple species.<br />
We did not undertake single-species surveys for<br />
threatened or endangered species. This report<br />
supersedes results reported in Powell et al. (2002<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2003).<br />
Administrative History<br />
The original study plan for this project was<br />
developed, <strong>and</strong> an inventory <strong>of</strong> one park unit<br />
(Tumacácori National Historical Park) was<br />
completed, through a cooperative agreement<br />
among NPS, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona (UA), <strong>and</strong> the<br />
United States Geological Survey (<strong>USGS</strong>). This<br />
project was funded through Task Agreements<br />
UAZ-03, UAZ-05, <strong>and</strong> UAZ-06 (under the<br />
Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems<br />
Studies Unit [CESU] cooperative agreement<br />
number 1200-99-009). NPS thereafter obligated<br />
additional funds through the Colorado Plateau<br />
CESU (UAZ-07) <strong>and</strong> the Desert Southwest<br />
CESU (cooperative agreement number CA1248-<br />
00-002, reference UAZ-39, UAZ-77, UAZ-87,<br />
UAZ-97, <strong>and</strong> UAZ-128) for administration <strong>and</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> the biological inventories.
Report Format <strong>and</strong> Data Organization<br />
Unlike others in the series, each taxonspecific<br />
chapter in this report has separate<br />
authorship. As such there are some differences<br />
in the organization <strong>and</strong> content <strong>of</strong> each chapter.<br />
Appendices related to each chapter are attributed<br />
to the respective author(s). We organized a single<br />
literature cited chapter at the end <strong>of</strong> the report.<br />
In the text, we report both common <strong>and</strong><br />
scientific names for plants, <strong>and</strong> for vertebrates<br />
we report only common names (listed in<br />
phylogenetic sequence in tables) unless we<br />
reference a species that is not listed later in an<br />
appendix; in this case, we present both common<br />
<strong>and</strong> scientific names. For each taxonomic<br />
group we include an appendix <strong>of</strong> all species<br />
that we recorded in the district (Appendices<br />
A–D). In the amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile <strong>and</strong> mammal<br />
chapters we review species that were likely<br />
or confirmed to have been present historically<br />
or that we suspect are currently present <strong>and</strong><br />
may be recorded with additional survey effort.<br />
Scientific <strong>and</strong> common names used throughout<br />
this document are current according to accepted<br />
authorities for each taxonomic group: Integrated<br />
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2005) <strong>and</strong><br />
the PLANTS database (USDA 2005) for plants;<br />
Stebbins (2003) for amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles;<br />
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU 1998,<br />
2003) for birds; <strong>and</strong> Baker et al. (2003a) for<br />
mammals. We recognize that the designation <strong>of</strong><br />
a plant as “non-native” using the aforementioned<br />
lists may lead to the misclassification <strong>of</strong> some<br />
species, because these lists indicate only species<br />
status in North America as a whole, not regions<br />
within the continent. Therefore, our flora<br />
underestimates the number <strong>of</strong> non-native species,<br />
but because no authoritative list <strong>of</strong> non-native<br />
species exists for the region, we believe that use<br />
<strong>of</strong> these lists is justified.<br />
Spatial Data<br />
Most spatial data are geographically referenced<br />
to facilitate mapping <strong>of</strong> study plots <strong>and</strong> locations<br />
<strong>of</strong> plants or animals. Coordinates were stored<br />
in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)<br />
projection (Zone 12), using the North American<br />
Datum <strong>of</strong> 1983 (NAD 83). We recorded UTM<br />
2<br />
coordinates using h<strong>and</strong>-held Garmin E-Map ®<br />
Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Garmin<br />
International Incorporated, Olathe, KS; horizontal<br />
accuracy approximately 10–30 m). We obtained<br />
some plot or station locations by using more<br />
accurate Trimble Pathfinder ® GPS units (Trimble<br />
Navigation Limited, Sunnyvale, CA; horizontal<br />
accuracy about 1 m). Although we map the<br />
locations <strong>of</strong> study plots, stations, or transects<br />
on Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQ;<br />
produced by the <strong>USGS</strong>), the locations <strong>of</strong> study<br />
areas will remain with the park <strong>and</strong> NPS Sonoran<br />
Desert Network I&M <strong>of</strong>fice in Tucson. We also<br />
produced distribution maps for all vertebrate<br />
species from this <strong>and</strong> other recent survey efforts<br />
(including wildlife observation cards at the<br />
park). Those maps will be archived in the same<br />
locations as the GPS coordinates.<br />
Species Conservation Designations<br />
We indicate species conservation designations by<br />
the following agencies: U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife<br />
Service (responsible for administering the<br />
Endangered Species Act), USDA Forest Service,<br />
Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department, <strong>and</strong> Partners<br />
in Flight (a partnership <strong>of</strong> dozens <strong>of</strong> federal,<br />
state <strong>and</strong> local governments, non-governmental<br />
organizations, <strong>and</strong> private industry).<br />
Databases <strong>and</strong> Data Archiving<br />
We entered field data into taxon-specific<br />
databases (Micros<strong>of</strong>t Access version 97) <strong>and</strong><br />
checked all data for transcription errors. From<br />
these databases, we reproduced copies <strong>of</strong> the<br />
original field datasheets using the “Report”<br />
function in Access. The output looks similar<br />
to the original datasheets but data are easier to<br />
read. The databases, printouts <strong>of</strong> field data, <strong>and</strong><br />
other data such as digital photographs have been<br />
distributed to park staff <strong>and</strong> will be distributed to<br />
Special Collections at the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona.<br />
Original copies <strong>of</strong> all datasheets currently<br />
reside at the I&M <strong>of</strong>fice in Tucson <strong>and</strong> may be<br />
permanently archived at another location. Along<br />
with the archived data, we will include copies<br />
<strong>of</strong> the original datasheets <strong>and</strong> a guide to filling
them out. This information, in conjunction<br />
with the text <strong>of</strong> this report, should enable future<br />
researchers to repeat our work.<br />
Verification <strong>and</strong> Assessment <strong>of</strong> Results<br />
Photograph Vouchers<br />
Whenever possible, we documented vertebrate<br />
species with analog color photographs. Many<br />
<strong>of</strong> these photographs show coloration or other<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> visual appearance in detail,<br />
<strong>and</strong> they may serve as educational tools for the<br />
park staff <strong>and</strong> visitors. We obtained a closeup<br />
photograph <strong>of</strong> each animal “in h<strong>and</strong>” <strong>and</strong>,<br />
if possible, another photograph <strong>of</strong> the animal<br />
in natural surroundings. Photographs will be<br />
archived with other data as described above.<br />
Specimen Vouchers<br />
Specimen vouchers are an indisputable form <strong>of</strong><br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> a species occurrence. For plants, we<br />
searched the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Herbarium<br />
for existing specimens from the district (see<br />
Appendix A for results), <strong>and</strong> we collected<br />
herbarium specimens whenever flowers or fruit<br />
were present on plants in the field. All specimens<br />
that we collected were accessioned into the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Herbarium. To prioritize<br />
vertebrate species for voucher collection, we<br />
first searched the park’s specimen collection <strong>and</strong><br />
that <strong>of</strong> other universities <strong>and</strong> collections (Table<br />
3<br />
1.1; see Appendix F for results). When we did<br />
collect specimens, most were found dead. When<br />
necessary, we euthanized animals according to<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ardized <strong>and</strong> approved procedures, prepared<br />
the specimens using accepted methods, <strong>and</strong><br />
deposited them in the appropriate collection at the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona.<br />
Assessing <strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness<br />
We assessed inventory completeness by (1)<br />
examining the rate at which new species were<br />
recorded in successive surveys (i.e., species<br />
accumulation curves; Hayek <strong>and</strong> Buzas 1997)<br />
<strong>and</strong> (2) comparing the list <strong>of</strong> species we recorded<br />
with a list <strong>of</strong> species likely to be present based<br />
on previous research <strong>and</strong>/or expert opinion.<br />
We created species accumulation curves for<br />
all taxonomic groups except plants. For all<br />
accumulation curves (unless indicated otherwise),<br />
we r<strong>and</strong>omized the order <strong>of</strong> the sampling periods<br />
to break up clusters <strong>of</strong> new detections that<br />
resulted from temporal conditions (e.g., monsoon<br />
initiation) independent <strong>of</strong> cumulative effort. We<br />
used the computer program Species Richness<br />
<strong>and</strong> Diversity III (Pisces Conservation Ltd., IRC<br />
House, Pennington, Lymington, UK) to calculate<br />
species accumulation curves where the order<br />
<strong>of</strong> samples was shuffled the maximum number<br />
<strong>of</strong> times <strong>and</strong> the average was plotted, thereby<br />
smoothing the curve.<br />
Table 1.1. Museums that were queried in 1998 for vertebrate voucher specimens with “Arizona” <strong>and</strong><br />
“<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park” <strong>and</strong> “National Monument” in the collection location.<br />
Brigham Young University Oklahoma Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History, Norman<br />
Chicago Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences Peabody Museum, Yale University<br />
Cincinnati Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History & Science <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park (collection now at the Western<br />
Cornell <strong>Vertebrate</strong> Collections, Cornell University Archaeological <strong>and</strong> Conservation Center, Tucson<br />
George Mason University (Fairfax, VA) Strecker Museum, Baylor University, Waco<br />
Illinois Natural History Survey Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection<br />
Marjorie Barrick Museum, University <strong>of</strong> Nevada-Las Vegas Tulane Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History<br />
Michigan State University Museum (East Lansing) University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
Milwaukee Public Museum University <strong>of</strong> Texas, Arlington<br />
Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History, University <strong>of</strong> Kansas University <strong>of</strong> Illinois, Champaign-Urbana<br />
Museum <strong>of</strong> Texas Tech University University <strong>of</strong> Colorado Museum<br />
Museum <strong>of</strong> <strong>Vertebrate</strong> Zoology, University <strong>of</strong> California, Berkeley United States National Museum<br />
Museum <strong>of</strong> Life Sciences, Louisiana State University, Shreveport Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona<br />
Natural History Museum <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles County Western Archaeological <strong>and</strong> Conservation Center, Tucson<br />
North Carolina State Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural Sciences Wupatki National Monument, Flagstaff
Estimating Abundance<br />
Estimating population size is a common goal<br />
<strong>of</strong> biologists who are motivated by the desire<br />
to reduce (pest species), increase (endangered<br />
species), maintain (game species) or monitor<br />
(indicator species) population size. Our surveys<br />
at the park were generally focused on detecting<br />
species rather than estimating population size.<br />
In many cases, however, we present estimates<br />
<strong>of</strong> “relative abundance” by species to provide<br />
information on areas in which species might be<br />
more or less common. Relative abundance is<br />
an index to population size; we calculate it as<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> a species recorded,<br />
scaled by survey effort. If we completed multiple<br />
surveys in comparable areas, we included a<br />
measure <strong>of</strong> precision (usually st<strong>and</strong>ard error) with<br />
the mean <strong>of</strong> those survey results.<br />
Indices <strong>of</strong> abundance are presumed to<br />
correlate with true population size but ecologists<br />
do not typically attempt to account for variation<br />
in detectability among different species or groups<br />
<strong>of</strong> species under different circumstances. Metrics<br />
(rather than indices) <strong>of</strong> abundance do consider<br />
variation in detection probability, <strong>and</strong> these<br />
include density (number <strong>of</strong> individuals per unit<br />
area; e.g., one Arizona black rattlesnake per km 2 )<br />
<strong>and</strong> absolute abundance (population size; e.g., 30<br />
Arizona black rattlesnakes at the district). These<br />
estimates are beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> our research.<br />
While it is true that indices to abundance have<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten been criticized (<strong>and</strong> with good reason, c.f.<br />
Anderson 2001a), the abundance information that<br />
we present in this report is used to characterize<br />
the commonness <strong>of</strong> different species rather than<br />
to quantify changes in abundance over long<br />
periods <strong>of</strong> time (e.g., monitoring). As such,<br />
relative abundance estimates are more useful<br />
than detectability-adjusted estimates <strong>of</strong> density<br />
for only a few species or raw count data for all<br />
species without scaling counts by survey effort.<br />
Sampling Design<br />
Overview<br />
Sampling design is the process <strong>of</strong> selecting<br />
sample units from a population or area <strong>of</strong> interest.<br />
4<br />
Unbiased r<strong>and</strong>om samples allow inference to<br />
the larger population from which those samples<br />
were drawn <strong>and</strong> enable one to estimate the true<br />
value <strong>of</strong> a parameter. The precision <strong>of</strong> these<br />
estimates, based on sample variance, increases<br />
with the number <strong>of</strong> samples taken; theoretically,<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om samples can be taken until all possible<br />
samples have been selected <strong>and</strong> precision is exact<br />
– a census has been taken <strong>and</strong> the true value is<br />
known. Non-r<strong>and</strong>om samples are less likely to be<br />
representative <strong>of</strong> the entire population, because<br />
the sample may (intentionally or not) be biased<br />
toward a particular characteristic, perhaps one <strong>of</strong><br />
interest or convenience.<br />
In our surveys we employed both<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om <strong>and</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om spatial sampling<br />
designs for all taxa. For r<strong>and</strong>om sites, we colocated<br />
all taxonomic studies at the same sites<br />
(focal points <strong>and</strong> focal-point transects; see<br />
below for more information) because some<br />
characteristics, especially vegetation, could be<br />
used to explain differences in species richness<br />
or relative abundance among transects. We also<br />
used vegetation floristics <strong>and</strong> structure to group<br />
transects into community types that allowed more<br />
accurate data summaries. The location <strong>of</strong> nonr<strong>and</strong>om<br />
study sites was entirely at the discretion<br />
<strong>of</strong> each field crew (i.e., plants, birds, etc.) <strong>and</strong> we<br />
made no effort to co-locate them.<br />
Focal Points <strong>and</strong> Focal-point Transects: R<strong>and</strong>om<br />
Sampling<br />
To account for differences in plant <strong>and</strong> animal<br />
communities at different elevation zones (e.g.,<br />
Whittaker <strong>and</strong> Niering 1965) at the district,<br />
we used a stratified r<strong>and</strong>om design using<br />
elevation to delineate three strata: 6,000 feet. We chose a stratified<br />
design over a simple r<strong>and</strong>om design because<br />
stratified sampling better captures the inherent<br />
environmental variability within each stratum,<br />
allowing for greater precision <strong>of</strong> parameter<br />
estimates <strong>and</strong> increased sampling efficiency<br />
(Levy <strong>and</strong> Lemeshow 1999). This design also<br />
generates a better spatial dispersion <strong>of</strong> sampling<br />
units. Further, we chose to delineate strata<br />
based on elevation because it can be a good<br />
predictor <strong>of</strong> changes in vegetation <strong>and</strong> animal
communities <strong>and</strong> is especially useful when no<br />
reliable vegetation maps exist, as was the case for<br />
the district.<br />
Locating R<strong>and</strong>om Study Sites<br />
We used the following process to assign the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om study areas. First, we created<br />
100 r<strong>and</strong>om (hereafter referred to as “focal”)<br />
points using the Animal Movement extension<br />
for ArcView (developed by the <strong>USGS</strong> Alaska<br />
Science Center – Biological Science Office),<br />
using uniform distribution, allowing zero meters<br />
to the district boundary, <strong>and</strong> zero meters between<br />
points. For each focal point, we generated a<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om bearing (the numbers ranged from 0 to<br />
359). We then used the Bearing <strong>and</strong> Distance<br />
extension for ArcView (developed by Ying Ming<br />
Zhou, March 29, 2000; downloaded from ESRI<br />
ArcScripts website) to create points based on the<br />
distance <strong>and</strong> bearing from the original points.<br />
This gave us start points <strong>and</strong> end points for all<br />
100 focal points. We then used the “from” <strong>and</strong><br />
“to” coordinates to draw the transect line using<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
D<br />
E<br />
100m<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20<br />
5<br />
an Avenue script (“Draw line by coordinates,”<br />
developed by Rodrigo Nobrega, August 13, 1998;<br />
downloaded from ESRI ArcScripts website). The<br />
result was r<strong>and</strong>omly placed, 1000-m line transects<br />
(hereafter referred to as “focal-point transects”<br />
or “transects”). Focal-point transects were not<br />
allowed to overlap. If this occurred, an entire new<br />
selection was conducted until a scenario <strong>of</strong> no<br />
overlapping transects was achieved.<br />
Many focal-point transects were not used<br />
because (1) some part <strong>of</strong> them lay outside <strong>of</strong> the<br />
district boundary, (2) at least 67% <strong>of</strong> the line did<br />
not fall within a single stratum, or (3) they were<br />
in areas where the terrain was too steep to work<br />
safely (i.e., crossed areas with slopes exceeding 35<br />
degrees). These “danger” areas were derived from<br />
30-m Digital Elevation Models using the Spatial<br />
Analyst extension for ArcView. The final design<br />
produced four bird-survey stations spaced 250<br />
m apart; 10, 100 x 100 m amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile<br />
plots; <strong>and</strong> 20, 50 x 50 m mammal plots along the<br />
focal-point transect line (Fig. 1.1). We sampled<br />
1 2 3 3 4 4<br />
Figure 1.1. Layout <strong>of</strong> 1-km focal-point transects showing layout <strong>of</strong> amphibian <strong>and</strong><br />
reptile plots (C), small-mammal trapping grids (D), <strong>and</strong> bird survey stations (E).
vegetation by point intercept along six, 50-m<br />
transects (see Chapter 3 for more information).<br />
To map the location <strong>of</strong> plots, we designed<br />
a footprint <strong>of</strong> the sampling grids using an<br />
Avenue Script (“View.CreateTransectLines,” by<br />
Neal Banerjee, October 5, 2000; downloaded<br />
from ESRI ArcScripts website) to create grid<br />
lines every 100 m that were perpendicular (90<br />
degrees) to a “dummy” transect (Fig. 1.1A).<br />
These grid lines were converted from graphics to<br />
shapes using the XTools extension for ArcView<br />
(developed by the Oregon Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Forestry). We then generated points where each<br />
grid line intersected the transect using the Themes<br />
Intersections to Points extension for ArcView<br />
(developed by Arun Saraf, November 11, 1999;<br />
downloaded from ESRI ArcScripts website) (Fig.<br />
1.1B).<br />
We created 100 x 100 m squares<br />
centered on each intersection point to generate<br />
the amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile plots using the<br />
Square Buffer Wizard extension for ArcView<br />
(developed by Robert J. Scheitlin, May 12, 2000;<br />
downloaded from ESRI ArcScripts website).<br />
These squares were numbered 1 to 10 in the<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> the transect bearing (Fig. 1.1C). The<br />
same process was repeated to create the mammal<br />
plots (Fig. 1.1D). Four bird survey stations were<br />
created by selecting the center <strong>of</strong> mammal plots<br />
6<br />
3, 8, 13, <strong>and</strong> 18 <strong>and</strong> buffering each <strong>of</strong> these<br />
points with a radius <strong>of</strong> 125 m (Fig. 1.1E).<br />
These circles were numbered 1 to 4 in the<br />
direction <strong>of</strong> the transect bearing.<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om Selection <strong>of</strong> Study Sites<br />
Many areas <strong>of</strong> the district contain unique areas<br />
requiring special surveys for all taxa. Riparian<br />
areas, cliffs, rocky outcrops, <strong>and</strong> ephemeral<br />
pools were likely to be missed if we located<br />
our study sites only in r<strong>and</strong>om areas. Yet these<br />
areas are diversity “hotspots” <strong>and</strong> are therefore<br />
crucial to visit in order to complete the species<br />
inventories. We selected these study areas<br />
based on our knowledge <strong>of</strong> the district. The<br />
area deemed to be <strong>of</strong> importance differed<br />
by taxonomic group, but we chose to do<br />
surveys for all taxa in low-elevation riparian<br />
areas (e.g., Rincon Creek). For plants, we<br />
concentrated on Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong> drainages<br />
on the east slope <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains. For<br />
reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians we searched dozens <strong>of</strong><br />
canyons at low <strong>and</strong> medium elevations, <strong>and</strong> for<br />
mammals we concentrated on middle elevation<br />
semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s (for more complete<br />
descriptions <strong>of</strong> survey areas, see each taxonspecific<br />
chapters.
Chapter 2: Park Overview<br />
Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, <strong>and</strong> William L. Halvorson<br />
Park Area <strong>and</strong> History<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park is located in eastern Pima<br />
County adjacent to Tucson, Arizona (Fig. 2.1).<br />
Originally designated as a national monument,<br />
the park was created in 1933 to preserve the<br />
“exceptional growth” <strong>of</strong> the saguaro cactus (NPS<br />
1992b). In 1961, the park was exp<strong>and</strong>ed to<br />
include over 9,000 ha <strong>of</strong> the Tucson Mountains<br />
(know as the Tucson Mountain District). The<br />
Rincon Mountain District (referred to as “the<br />
district”) is the subject <strong>of</strong> this report. It is 2 ,233<br />
ha in size <strong>and</strong> is bounded by USDA Forest Service<br />
l<strong>and</strong> to the east; Forest Service <strong>and</strong> private l<strong>and</strong> to<br />
the north; Forest Service, private <strong>and</strong> state l<strong>and</strong> to<br />
the south; <strong>and</strong> private l<strong>and</strong> to the west (Fig. 2.2).<br />
Although created to preserve natural resources, the<br />
park is also home to native American campsites<br />
<strong>and</strong> petroglyphs <strong>and</strong> contains remnants <strong>of</strong> early<br />
ranching <strong>and</strong> mining (NPS 1992b). Annual<br />
visitation to both districts <strong>of</strong> the park averages<br />
approximately 00,000 (NPS 2005).<br />
Natural Resources Overview<br />
Physiography, Geology, <strong>and</strong> Soils<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park is located within the Basin<br />
<strong>and</strong> Range Physiographic Province. The district<br />
encompasses most <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains, one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the region’s prominent “sky isl<strong>and</strong>” mountain<br />
ranges. Topography at the district varies from<br />
low-elevation desert flats to steep rocky canyons<br />
<strong>and</strong> high-elevation meadows. Elevation ranges<br />
from 814 m (2,6 0 feet) in the northwestern<br />
corner <strong>of</strong> the district to 2,641 m (8,665 feet) at<br />
Mica Mountain. The Rincon Mountains are<br />
primarily metamorphic in origin, with rocks <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Santa Catalina Group, a mixture <strong>of</strong> Pinal Schist,<br />
Continental Granodiorite, <strong>and</strong> Wrong Mountain<br />
Quartz Monzonite (McColly 1961, Drewes<br />
19 ). All components are <strong>of</strong> Precambrian<br />
rock parentage, subsequently deformed <strong>and</strong><br />
recrystalized. Sedimentary rocks in the vicinity<br />
are largely Permian limestones <strong>of</strong> Earp <strong>and</strong><br />
Horquilla formations (Drewes 19 ).<br />
Hydrology<br />
The Rincon Mountain District has several sources<br />
<strong>of</strong> perennial water: Chimenea, Madrona, Rincon,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Wild Horse Creeks; <strong>and</strong> Deer Head, Spud<br />
Rock, Italian, <strong>and</strong> Manning Camp Springs. The<br />
most prominent hydrologic feature is Rincon<br />
Creek, which drains approximately one-half <strong>of</strong><br />
the district.<br />
Climate<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park experiences an annual<br />
bimodal pattern <strong>of</strong> precipitation which is<br />
characterized by heavy summer (monsoon)<br />
storms brought about by moisture coming from<br />
the Gulf <strong>of</strong> Mexico, <strong>and</strong> less intense frontal<br />
systems coming from the Pacific Ocean in the<br />
winter. On average, approximately one-half <strong>of</strong><br />
the annual precipitation falls from July through<br />
September (Tables 2.1, 2.2; WRCC 2005, PCFCD<br />
2005). The area’s hot season occurs from April<br />
through October; daily maximum temperatures<br />
exceed 40 o C at lower elevations <strong>and</strong> 30 o C at<br />
high elevations. Winter temperatures dip below<br />
freezing <strong>and</strong> snow is common at high elevations.<br />
From 2001 to 2003, during the time <strong>of</strong><br />
most <strong>of</strong> our inventory effort, average annual<br />
precipitation totals for the high elevation areas<br />
were slightly below the long-term mean <strong>of</strong> 69.1<br />
cm (60.6 cm in 2001, 38.6 cm from May to Dec<br />
2002 [no data for Jan–Apr 2002] <strong>and</strong> 60.0 cm in<br />
2003; Fig. 2.3; PCFCD 2005). Average annual<br />
precipitation totals for low elevations ranged<br />
from slightly to substantially below the longterm<br />
mean <strong>of</strong> 28.6 cm (21. cm in 2001, 19.0 cm<br />
in 2002 <strong>and</strong> 26.5 cm in 2003; Fig. 2.3; WRCC<br />
2005). The percent <strong>of</strong> the total precipitation<br />
during the monsoon season (July through<br />
September) was higher in the low elevation<br />
(50%) than in the high elevation (40%) areas<br />
(Tables 2.1, 2.2).
Figure 2.1. Location <strong>of</strong> the two districts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park in southern Arizona.<br />
Average annual temperatures for low<br />
elevations from 2001 to 2003 were above the<br />
long-term mean <strong>of</strong> 21.3 o C (21.5 o C in 2001,<br />
21.6 o C in 2002 <strong>and</strong> 22.0 o C in 2003; Fig 2.3;<br />
WRCC 2005). Average annual temperatures for<br />
high elevations ranged from slightly below to<br />
slightly above the long-term mean <strong>of</strong> 8.5 o C (6. o C<br />
in 2001, .3 o C in 2002 <strong>and</strong> 9.5 o C in 2003; Fig<br />
2.3; PCFCD 2005), though these records have<br />
only been kept for 10 years.<br />
8<br />
Vegetation <strong>and</strong> Biotic Communities<br />
The Rincon Mountain District encompasses<br />
most <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains, one <strong>of</strong> the “sky<br />
isl<strong>and</strong>” mountain ranges <strong>of</strong> southeast Arizona<br />
<strong>and</strong> northern Mexico. Sky isl<strong>and</strong>s, so called<br />
because the “sky” mountains are isolated by<br />
“seas” <strong>of</strong> desert <strong>and</strong> semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s, are<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> remarkable biological diversity as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> elevational gradients <strong>and</strong> subsequent
Figure 2.2. Aerial photograph showing major features <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District.<br />
Table 2.1. Average monthly climate data for Manning Camp (high elevation), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 1994–2004. Data from PCFCD (2005).<br />
Month<br />
Characteristic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual<br />
Maximum temperature ( o C) 15.6 15.0 17.9 19.8 27.0 27.4 29.2 27.1 25.6 23.0 17.9 15.2 21.7<br />
Minimum temperature ( o C) -10.6 -9.6 -9.8 -5.6 -4.1 1.6 7.3 7.0 3.8 -3.7 -8.1 -10.6 -3.5<br />
Precipitation (cm) 6.5 6.6 8.3 3.4 0.8 0.9 12.2 11.2 4.6 3.7 3.9 7.0 5.8<br />
Table 2.2. Average monthly climate data for the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona (low elevation; the closest climate<br />
monitoring station to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District) 1894–2004. Data from WRCC<br />
(2005).<br />
Month<br />
Characteristic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual<br />
Maximum temperature ( o C) 18.6 20.5 23.5 27.8 32.6 37.7 37.8 36.7 35.1 29.9 23.5 19.0 28.6<br />
Minimum temperature ( o C) 3.1 4.5 6.7 9.9 14.2 19.3 23.3 22.4 19.3 12.7 6.6 3.4 12.1<br />
Precipitation (cm) 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.0 0.4 0.7 5.2 5.4 3.0 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.3<br />
9
Centimeters from mean Degrees Celsius difference from mean<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
-2<br />
-4<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
-5<br />
-10<br />
Temperature<br />
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec<br />
Precipitation<br />
Manning Camp<br />
Month<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec<br />
Month<br />
Figure 2.3. Comparison <strong>of</strong> monthly weather data during the time <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the inventory<br />
effort (2001–2003) compared to the mean (1994–2004 for Manning Camp, 1894–2004 for University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona; thick solid line in all figures), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Data for Manning Camp from PCFCD<br />
(2005) <strong>and</strong> data for University <strong>of</strong> Arizona from WRCC (2005).<br />
differences in precipitation <strong>and</strong> temperature.<br />
These mountain ranges extend from subtropical<br />
to temperate latitudes, hosting species whose<br />
core distributions are from the Sierra Madre <strong>of</strong><br />
Mexico <strong>and</strong> the Rocky Mountains <strong>of</strong> the United<br />
States <strong>and</strong> Canada (Warshall 1994). In southern<br />
Arizona, the sky isl<strong>and</strong> mountain ranges have<br />
similar <strong>and</strong> predictable vegetation communities<br />
across elevational gradients, from low-elevation<br />
Sonoran desertscrub to high-elevation conifer<br />
forests. Below we review the major vegetation<br />
<strong>and</strong> biotic communities found in the Rincon<br />
Mountains.<br />
Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
Sonoran Desertscrub (Sonoran Desert Scrub;<br />
Fig. 2.4) is found in the lowest elevation <strong>and</strong><br />
driest areas <strong>of</strong> the district on its west <strong>and</strong><br />
southern boundaries. The dominant shrubs<br />
are velvet mesquite (Prosopis spp.), acacias<br />
(Acacia spp.), palo verdes (Cercidium spp.), <strong>and</strong><br />
creosote bush (Larrea tridentata). Succulents<br />
10<br />
Centimeters from mean Degrees Celsius difference from mean<br />
Centimenters from mean<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
-2<br />
-4<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
-2<br />
-4<br />
Temperature<br />
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec<br />
Precipitation<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
Month<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec<br />
Month<br />
are ubiquitous <strong>and</strong> include: agave (Agave spp.),<br />
yucca (Yucca spp.), barrel cactus (Ferrocactus<br />
<strong>and</strong> Echinocactus spp.), pincushion cactus<br />
(Mammalaria spp.), <strong>and</strong> prickly pear <strong>and</strong> cholla<br />
(Opuntia spp.). Warm- <strong>and</strong> cool-season annuals,<br />
both native (e.g., woolly plantain, [<strong>Plant</strong>ago<br />
patagonia]) <strong>and</strong> introduced (e.g., red brome,<br />
[Bromus rubens]) are common following rainfall.<br />
Southwestern Deciduous Riparian Forest<br />
These forests (Canyon Woodl<strong>and</strong>; Fig 2.4) are<br />
found along low-elevation washes <strong>and</strong> creeks<br />
<strong>and</strong> are among the most biologically unique<br />
communities in the Sonoran Desert ecoregion.<br />
At the district they are found along Rincon Creek<br />
<strong>and</strong> to a lesser extent along its tributaries. The<br />
dominant tree species are Fremont cottonwood<br />
(Populus fremonti), Arizona sycamore (Platanus<br />
wrightii), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), willow<br />
(Salix spp.), <strong>and</strong> netleaf hackberry (Celtis<br />
reticulata). In the Rincon Mountain District<br />
Sonoran Desertscrub bounds these zones.
Figure 2.4. Diagram <strong>of</strong> the major vegetation communities <strong>of</strong> the Santa Catalina Mountains, adjacent to the<br />
Rincon Mountains (from Whittaker <strong>and</strong> Niering 1965). The Rincon Mountains have similar communities with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the subalpine forest community. Reprinted with permission from the Ecological Society <strong>of</strong> America.<br />
11
Semi-desert Grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
Semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s (Desert Grassl<strong>and</strong>; Fig<br />
2.4) occur in some middle elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
district, primarily along the northern boundary <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> in a few areas <strong>of</strong> Tanque Verde Ridge. The<br />
community is composed <strong>of</strong> perennial short- <strong>and</strong><br />
mid-grass species, with most areas invaded by<br />
velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina Woot.).<br />
Oak Savannah<br />
The oak savannah community (Open Oak<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong>; Fig 2.4) is found at higher elevations<br />
than the semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong> community <strong>and</strong><br />
lower elevations than the pine-oak woodl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
it contains elements <strong>of</strong> both communities. It is<br />
ecologically similar to the chaparral communities<br />
<strong>of</strong> central Arizona. In this community there are<br />
dense st<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.)<br />
<strong>and</strong> oak (Quercus spp.), with a variety <strong>of</strong> annual<br />
<strong>and</strong> perennial grasses.<br />
Pine-oak Forest <strong>and</strong> Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Pine-oak forest <strong>and</strong> woodl<strong>and</strong> (sometimes<br />
referred to as Madrean evergreen woodl<strong>and</strong>;<br />
Fig. 2.4) is ubiquitous at mid-elevations<br />
throughout the Apache Highl<strong>and</strong>s (Bailey<br />
1998, McPherson 1993). Madrean evergreen<br />
woodl<strong>and</strong> is characterized by evergreen oaks<br />
with thick sclerophyllous leaves, such as emory<br />
oak (Quercus emoryi Torr.), Arizona white oak<br />
(Quercus arizonica Sarg.), <strong>and</strong> Mexican blue oak<br />
(Quercus oblongifolia Torr.). Mexican pinyon<br />
pine (Pinus cembroides Zucc.) <strong>and</strong> alligator<br />
juniper (Juniperus deppeana Steud.) are the<br />
common gymnosperms. Understory grasses are<br />
usually abundant. At the higher elevations <strong>and</strong> in<br />
drainages, there is also ponderosa pine.<br />
Coniferous Forest<br />
Dominated by gymnosperms such as pines<br />
(Pinus spp.), <strong>and</strong> firs (Abies spp.), coniferous<br />
forests (Pine <strong>and</strong> Montane Fir Forests; Fig 2.4)<br />
represent the cold-hardiest biotic community<br />
in the district. In these communities in the<br />
district, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa P. &C.<br />
Lawson) <strong>and</strong> Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii<br />
[Mirbel] Franco) dominate, with some temperate<br />
deciduous plants intermixing, primarily on<br />
the north-facing slopes: Gambel oak (Quercus<br />
gambelii Nutt.), quaking aspen (Populus<br />
tremuloides Michx.), <strong>and</strong> maples (Acer spp.) <strong>and</strong><br />
12<br />
boxelder (Acer spp.). Conifer forests are fireadapted<br />
ecosystems, with natural low-intensity<br />
fires occurring every 6 to 15 years (Baisan <strong>and</strong><br />
Swetnam 1990, Dimmitt 2000).<br />
Natural Resource Management Issues<br />
Adjacent L<strong>and</strong> Development<br />
Increasing housing development along the<br />
western <strong>and</strong> southern boundaries has become<br />
the most pressing natural resource issue for the<br />
district. S<strong>and</strong>wiched between both districts<br />
<strong>of</strong> the park, the greater Tucson metropolitan<br />
area is one <strong>of</strong> the fastest growing in the United<br />
States. The area currently has an estimated<br />
population <strong>of</strong> 800,000, a 44% increase over the<br />
last two decades (PAG 2005). The increase<br />
in human residents brings with it a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
natural resource-related problems including<br />
harassment <strong>and</strong> predation <strong>of</strong> native species by<br />
feral animals, increased traffic leading to altered<br />
animal movement patterns <strong>and</strong> mortality, the<br />
spread <strong>of</strong> non-native species, illegal collections<br />
<strong>of</strong> animals, v<strong>and</strong>alism, increased water dem<strong>and</strong>s,<br />
air pollution from vehicle emissions, <strong>and</strong> visual<br />
intrusions to the natural l<strong>and</strong>scape (Briggs et al.<br />
1996). Throughout this document we highlight<br />
some <strong>of</strong> these impacts as they pertain to each<br />
taxonomic group.<br />
Of immediate concern for park<br />
managers is the depletion <strong>of</strong> groundwater <strong>and</strong><br />
its effects on the ecologically valuable Rincon<br />
Creek, in particular (Baird et al. 2000). There<br />
are numerous single-family <strong>and</strong> large-scale<br />
housing units being constructed (or planned)<br />
directly adjacent to the district, including the<br />
proposed Rocking K Ranch development,<br />
which anticipates 9,000 residents <strong>and</strong> has been<br />
granted a permit by the Arizona Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Water Resources to withdraw 4,400 acre feet per<br />
year from the underlying aquifer (Mott 199 ).<br />
Rincon Creek has the most well-developed<br />
stretch <strong>of</strong> southwestern deciduous riparian forest<br />
in the district, which will likely be impacted<br />
by drawdown <strong>of</strong> the aquifer. Groundwater<br />
drawdown at Tanque Verde Wash has already<br />
affected the riparian community there (Mott<br />
199 ).
Non-native Species <strong>and</strong> Changes to Vegetation<br />
The spread <strong>of</strong> non-native species within the<br />
district is an important natural resource issue.<br />
In particular, buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare),<br />
Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana),<br />
red brome (Bromus rubens) <strong>and</strong> other nonnative<br />
grasses, have increased in the last ten<br />
years (Funicelli et al. 2001). The spread <strong>of</strong><br />
some non-native plants used for l<strong>and</strong>scaping,<br />
such as crimson fountaingrass (Pennisetum<br />
setaceum) from development bordering the<br />
district is also a concern. The invasion <strong>of</strong> nonnative<br />
grasses has led to structural changes in<br />
vegetation, from areas that supported mostly<br />
sparse bunchgrasses to areas <strong>of</strong> uniform grass.<br />
This change in species composition <strong>and</strong> structure<br />
can alter the fire regime <strong>of</strong> the area by supporting<br />
higher fire frequencies, thereby leading to other<br />
changes in vegetation composition <strong>and</strong> structure<br />
(Anable et al. 1992). Nowhere are these effects<br />
more evident than in the Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
vegetation community, which rarely burned<br />
historically (Steenbergh <strong>and</strong> Lowe 19 ). Many<br />
native plant species, especially succulents, are not<br />
adapted to short duration but high-intensity fires<br />
<strong>and</strong> therefore die (Schwalbe et al. 1999, Dimmitt<br />
2000). Fires such as the Mother’s day fire,<br />
which was fueled largely by non-native grasses,<br />
have caused a high mortality <strong>of</strong> saguaro cactus<br />
(Carnegiae gigantea Britt. & Rose), which is <strong>of</strong><br />
great concern to park managers (Schwalbe et al.<br />
1999; see Chapter 3 for additional information).<br />
13<br />
Wildl<strong>and</strong> Fire<br />
Since the park began keeping records in 193 ,<br />
there have been 572 fires in the district, <strong>and</strong> since<br />
1984, park personnel have burned approximately<br />
1,450 ha through their active fire-management<br />
program. Fires play a crucial role in the middle<br />
<strong>and</strong> high-elevation semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong><br />
forests by depleting dense understory vegetation<br />
<strong>and</strong> downed-woody debris. Even in these<br />
fire-adapted ecosystems, however, fire can<br />
be devastating, particularly after decades <strong>of</strong><br />
suppression <strong>and</strong> subsequent buildup <strong>of</strong> fuel loads.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> large fires in the last few decades,<br />
most notably the Chiva <strong>and</strong> Box Canyon fires,<br />
caused massive run<strong>of</strong>fs <strong>of</strong> sediment <strong>and</strong> ash.<br />
The Chiva fire apparently eliminated lowl<strong>and</strong><br />
leopard frog habitat <strong>and</strong> may have destroyed the<br />
district’s only population <strong>of</strong> (federally listed)<br />
Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis<br />
occidentalis) at Little Wildhorse Tank, though<br />
their status as a natural or introduced population<br />
was uncertain (Don Swann, pers. comm.). The<br />
Box Canyon fire <strong>of</strong> 1999 led to the sedimentation<br />
<strong>of</strong> perennial pools, where lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frogs<br />
once bred (Don Swann, unpubl. data). Despite<br />
some problems, the NPS is committed to<br />
returning natural fire cycles to the high elevation<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> the district.
Chapter 3: <strong>Plant</strong> <strong>Inventory</strong><br />
Brian F. Powell<br />
Previous <strong>and</strong> Ongoing Research<br />
Floras <strong>and</strong> <strong>Plant</strong> Collections<br />
We located specimens representing 883 species at<br />
the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Herbarium (Appendix<br />
A). Many <strong>of</strong> these specimens were collected<br />
or reported in Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987).<br />
Their treatise is the most comprehensive<br />
annotated flora for the Rincon Mountains, though<br />
species have been added to the list since its<br />
publication. Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987)<br />
also provide an excellent overview <strong>of</strong> previous<br />
research <strong>and</strong> collecting from the range (as does<br />
Bowers [1984]), the plant communities present,<br />
species richness gradients, <strong>and</strong> a list <strong>of</strong> species<br />
extirpated from the range. The Bowers <strong>and</strong><br />
McLaughlin list was compiled from work by<br />
Bowers (1984) above 4,500 feet elevation <strong>and</strong> by<br />
Carole Jenkins who collected from 1978 to 1982<br />
below 4,500 feet elevation. Jenkins never wrote<br />
up the results <strong>of</strong> her work. The list was updated<br />
in 1996 to include the addition <strong>of</strong> 34 species<br />
<strong>and</strong> the subtraction <strong>of</strong> four (due to incorrect<br />
identifications; Fishbein <strong>and</strong> Bowers 1996).<br />
There have been floras for four designated natural<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> the district: Wildhorse Canyon (Rondeau<br />
<strong>and</strong> Van Devender 1992), Chimenea Canyon<br />
(Fishbein et al. 1994a), Box Canyon (Fishbein<br />
et al. 1994b), <strong>and</strong> Madrona Canyon (Fishbein<br />
1995). Halvorson <strong>and</strong> Gebow (2000) compiled<br />
these works into a single volume. Halvorson <strong>and</strong><br />
Guertin (2003) mapped locations <strong>of</strong> 27 species <strong>of</strong><br />
non-native plants.<br />
Monitoring, Research, <strong>and</strong> Single-species Studies<br />
Park personnel established long-term monitoring<br />
plots in low-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> both units<br />
(<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP 2005). They used the pointintercept<br />
method at 25 plots in the Rincon<br />
Mountain District <strong>and</strong> 20 plots in the Tucson<br />
Mountain District <strong>and</strong> surveyed these transects<br />
from 1998 to 2004 (Mark Holden, pers.<br />
comm.). Funicelli et al. (2001) resurveyed 25,<br />
15<br />
10 x 10 m vegetation plots (established 10 years<br />
prior to their surveys) <strong>and</strong> mapped each plant<br />
species. These plots were also used by Turner<br />
<strong>and</strong> Funicelli (2000) to resurvey the condition<br />
<strong>and</strong> population structure <strong>of</strong> the saguaro cactus.<br />
Swann et al. (2003a) used the same protocol as<br />
that used by Funicelli et al. (2001) to survey for<br />
plants on the east slope <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains.<br />
Anderson (2001b) surveyed vegetation transects<br />
at r<strong>and</strong>om sites in the Rocking K <strong>and</strong> adjacent<br />
expansion areas.<br />
The saguaro cactus, the park’s namesake<br />
species, has been one <strong>of</strong> the most investigated<br />
non-agricultural plants in the world. McAuliffe<br />
(1993) provided an overview <strong>of</strong> saguaro research<br />
at the park as well as its political <strong>and</strong> scientific<br />
context. Schwalbe et al. (1999) surveyed<br />
vegetation in <strong>and</strong> adjacent to the area burned<br />
by the Mother’s Day fire <strong>of</strong> 1994. Baisan <strong>and</strong><br />
Swetnam (1990) constructed a fire history (1657–<br />
1893) <strong>of</strong> the conifer forest in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> Mica<br />
Mountain. Though there is a GIS layer <strong>of</strong> 15<br />
dominant vegetation communities in the district,<br />
there is not a current, detailed vegetation map.<br />
In fact, the most current vegetation map was by<br />
Roseberry <strong>and</strong> Dole (1939).<br />
Current projects include a fire-effects<br />
monitoring program in the high elevation areas<br />
<strong>of</strong> the district (<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP, unpubl. data) <strong>and</strong> a<br />
program to map <strong>and</strong> remove non-native species<br />
(e.g., buffelgrass, fountaingrass, Saharan mustard,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Malta starthistle) from low-elevation areas <strong>of</strong><br />
both districts <strong>of</strong> the park.<br />
Methods<br />
We used three field methods to survey for<br />
vascular plants. General botanizing surveys<br />
involved opportunistically collecting what we<br />
thought might be new additions to the district’s<br />
flora or plants that we could not identify in the<br />
field. We also used modified-Whittaker plots<br />
<strong>and</strong> point-intercept transects to make quantitative<br />
comparisons among areas <strong>and</strong> provide data for<br />
long-term monitoring.
General Botanizing<br />
Methods<br />
We collected species opportunistically <strong>and</strong> when<br />
we thought we had found a species not on the<br />
district list (derived principally from Bowers<br />
<strong>and</strong> McLaughlin [1987]). We also searched<br />
specifically for species that were listed as<br />
possibly extirpated from the district (in Bowers<br />
<strong>and</strong> McLaughlin 1987). Whenever possible we<br />
collected at least one representative specimen<br />
with reproductive structures for each plant<br />
species that we encountered. We also maintained<br />
a list <strong>of</strong> species observed but not collected.<br />
When we collected a specimen, we assigned it a<br />
collection number <strong>and</strong> recorded the flower color,<br />
associated dominant vegetation, date, collector<br />
name(s), <strong>and</strong> UTM coordinates. We pressed <strong>and</strong><br />
processed the specimens on site. Specimens<br />
remained pressed for two to three weeks <strong>and</strong><br />
were later frozen for 48 hours or more to prevent<br />
infestation by insects <strong>and</strong> pathogens. Mounted<br />
specimens were accessioned into the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Arizona Herbarium.<br />
Effort<br />
We collected specimens during 38 days <strong>of</strong><br />
fieldwork between 10 April <strong>and</strong> 24 September<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 4 <strong>and</strong> 5 May 2002. We collected<br />
specimens from 41 locations throughout the<br />
district (Fig. 3.1) <strong>and</strong> many <strong>of</strong> the collections<br />
were made in the course <strong>of</strong> traveling to <strong>and</strong> from<br />
focal points.<br />
Analysis<br />
We present a variety <strong>of</strong> summary statistics<br />
including total number <strong>of</strong> species found <strong>and</strong><br />
number <strong>and</strong> percent <strong>of</strong> native <strong>and</strong> non-native<br />
species.<br />
Modified-Whittaker Plots<br />
We used modified-Whittaker plots to characterize<br />
the plant community at a single area associated<br />
with focal points. Each plot was 20 x 50 m<br />
(1000 m²) <strong>and</strong> contained 13 subplots <strong>of</strong> three<br />
different sizes (see Stohlgren et al. 1995a): 0.5<br />
x 2 m (10 subplots), 2 x 5 m (2 subplots), <strong>and</strong> 5<br />
x 20 m (1 subplot) (Fig. 3.2; Shmida 1984). We<br />
16<br />
estimated the coverage (m2 ) <strong>of</strong> each plant species<br />
for the entire 1000 m2 plot. For all subplots we<br />
simply noted the presence <strong>of</strong> each species. For a<br />
more detailed explanation <strong>of</strong> the data collection<br />
method, see Shmida (1984). We deviated from<br />
the methods outlined in Shmida (1984) by not<br />
surveying against the contours in steep areas,<br />
because <strong>of</strong> safety reasons.<br />
Effort<br />
We used modified-Whittaker plots at 13 <strong>of</strong> the 17<br />
focal points (Fig. 3.3). We excluded four plots<br />
(numbers 120, 121, 125, <strong>and</strong> 155) because <strong>of</strong><br />
logistical constraints. We used a single observer<br />
(Patty West) to estimate percent cover in the 20<br />
x 50 m plot, but other observers occasionally<br />
assisted with noting presence <strong>of</strong> plants in<br />
subplots.<br />
Analysis<br />
We note patterns <strong>of</strong> species richness among plots<br />
<strong>and</strong> community types. In this report we do not<br />
present a complete summary <strong>of</strong> the data, but<br />
instead will archive these summaries (see Chapter<br />
1 for archive locations).<br />
Point-intercept Transects<br />
Methods<br />
We used the point-intercept method (Bonham<br />
1989) to sample vegetation along 50-m transects<br />
located along each focal-point transect (Fig.<br />
3.4). Point-intercept transects began at 25, 125,<br />
425, 525, 825 <strong>and</strong> 925 m from the beginning <strong>of</strong><br />
the transect (i.e., focal point). For example, the<br />
first transect started at 25 m from the focal point<br />
<strong>and</strong> went to the 75-m mark. We placed a 50-m<br />
transect tape along the length <strong>of</strong> each transect<br />
section. In each <strong>of</strong> four height categories (4 m) we recorded the<br />
species <strong>of</strong> the first plant intercepted by a vertical<br />
line every 1 m along the transect line (n = 300<br />
points for most transects). We created the vertical<br />
line using a graduated pole <strong>and</strong> extrapolated<br />
contacts in a fourth height category (>4 m),<br />
which was rarely used in the desert areas. We<br />
classified groundcover as rock, bare ground,<br />
annual forb, grass or woody debris.
Figure 3.1. Locations <strong>of</strong> general botanizing collection sites, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
0.5 x 2m<br />
5 x 20m<br />
Figure 3.2. Layout <strong>of</strong> a modified-Whittaker plot, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001.<br />
17<br />
50 m<br />
2 x 5m<br />
20m
Figure 3.3. Locations <strong>of</strong> modified-Whittaker plots <strong>and</strong> point-intercept transects (line transect),<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001.<br />
50 m<br />
925 m 825 m<br />
Point-intercept transects<br />
Effort<br />
We surveyed along each <strong>of</strong> the 17 r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
transects (Fig. 3.3) in the spring <strong>of</strong> 2001. We<br />
typically worked in groups <strong>of</strong> two or three field<br />
personnel, but sometimes had as many as five<br />
field personnel. We surveyed a total <strong>of</strong> 300<br />
points along most transects. Additional points<br />
525 m 425 m<br />
Distance from focal point<br />
18<br />
125 m<br />
25 m<br />
Focal point (beginning<br />
<strong>of</strong> transect)<br />
Figure 3.4. Typical layout <strong>of</strong> point-intercept transects, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001.<br />
were surveyed on a subset <strong>of</strong> transects when time<br />
permitted; transects with difficult terrain resulted<br />
in fewer than 300 points being surveyed.<br />
Analysis<br />
We calculated percent cover <strong>and</strong> percent<br />
composition for each species in each height<br />
category. Percent cover is the number <strong>of</strong> times a<br />
0 m
species was encountered along the entire length<br />
<strong>of</strong> the transect divided by effort (in most cases a<br />
maximum <strong>of</strong> 300 intercepts per height category)<br />
<strong>and</strong> multiplied by 100. We calculated percent<br />
composition <strong>of</strong> each species in each height<br />
category as the number <strong>of</strong> times a species was<br />
encountered divided by the number <strong>of</strong> times all<br />
other species were encountered. If there was at<br />
least a single species encountered along a transect<br />
(in each height category), the total percent<br />
composition equaled 100 percent.<br />
Community Types<br />
We sought to identify plant communities within<br />
the district <strong>and</strong> to compare characteristics among<br />
them. We did not use the original stratification<br />
<strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om transects for this analysis because we<br />
were more interested in classifying communities<br />
than drawing inference to a larger area. To group<br />
transects, we used Ward’s hierarchical cluster<br />
analysis using data from point-intercept transects.<br />
Cluster analysis is a multivariate technique that<br />
groups like entities (in our case transects) that<br />
share similar values. We used the total number<br />
<strong>of</strong> point intercepts by the most common plant<br />
species in all four height categories for this<br />
analysis. A detailed summary <strong>of</strong> point-intercept<br />
data will be available along with other archived<br />
materials (see Chapter 1).<br />
Results<br />
We collected 741 specimens representing 523<br />
species from the Rincon Mountain District<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park (Appendix A). We<br />
found 39 species that had not previously been<br />
documented in the district, almost one-half <strong>of</strong><br />
them (n = 19) during the course <strong>of</strong> surveying<br />
at point-intercept <strong>and</strong>/or modified-Whittaker<br />
plots. The list <strong>of</strong> new species that we found<br />
included five non-native species, most notably<br />
African sumac (Rhus lancea). Native species <strong>of</strong><br />
note that we added to the flora included cleftleaf<br />
wildheliotrope (Phacelia crenulata), Arizona<br />
dewberry (Rubus arizonensis), <strong>and</strong> American<br />
black nightshade (Solanum americanum).<br />
Based on a thorough review <strong>of</strong> past<br />
studies, floras, <strong>and</strong> collections located at the<br />
19<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, there have been a total <strong>of</strong><br />
1,170 specific <strong>and</strong> intraspecific taxa documented<br />
at the district, <strong>of</strong> which 78 (6.7%) are non native.<br />
Excluding eight species in the UA collection that<br />
Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987) cite as likely<br />
extirpated from the district, there have been<br />
1,120 species (1,162 including intraspecific taxa)<br />
documented since the early 1980s (Appendix<br />
A). Of these species, six were thought to be<br />
extirpated by Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987) but<br />
were found by other studies: purple scalystem<br />
(Elytraria imbicata), Lemmon’s hawkweed<br />
(Hieracium lemmonii), alderleaf mountain<br />
mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), Baltic rush<br />
(Juncus balticus), poverty rush (J. tenius), <strong>and</strong><br />
common barley (Hordeum vulgare) (Appendix<br />
A).<br />
Community Types<br />
Based on our interpretation <strong>of</strong> the cluster analysis<br />
using data from point-intercept transects, there<br />
are four communities (i.e., clusters) represented:<br />
• Sonoran Desertscrub. Five lowelevation<br />
transects (112, 115, 130, 138,<br />
<strong>and</strong> 139) <strong>and</strong> one middle elevation<br />
transect (121). Mixed cacti <strong>and</strong><br />
paloverde (Parkinsonia spp.), with some<br />
velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina),<br />
especially in the dry washes.<br />
• Oak Savannah. Four middle-elevation<br />
transects (101, 106, 189, <strong>and</strong> 111). Open<br />
areas dominated by perennial grasses<br />
with scattered trees, mostly oaks.<br />
• Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong>. Two middle<br />
(125 <strong>and</strong> 120) <strong>and</strong> three high (107,<br />
155, <strong>and</strong> 128) elevation transects.<br />
Most transects had dense st<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong><br />
manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) <strong>and</strong><br />
oaks, interspersed with some pine trees,<br />
mostly pinon <strong>and</strong> ponderosa pine (Pinus<br />
ponderosa).<br />
• Conifer Forest. Two high elevation<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om transects (113 <strong>and</strong> 191). Tall<br />
forests <strong>of</strong> ponderosa pine, Douglas fir<br />
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), <strong>and</strong> some<br />
oaks, especially Gambel oak (Quercus<br />
gambelii).
Focal-points: General Patterns<br />
We found 367 species associated with the 17<br />
focal points. Approximately 47% <strong>of</strong> these species<br />
(n = 173) we found associated with only a single<br />
focal point, whereas six species (spidergrass<br />
[Aristida ternipes], side-oats grama [Bouteloua<br />
curtipendula], plains lovegrass [Eragrostis<br />
intermedia], bullgrass [Muhlenbergia emersleyi],<br />
sacahuista [Nolina microcarpa], <strong>and</strong> skunkbush<br />
sumac [Rhus trilobata]) were associated with 10<br />
or more focal points. The skunkbush sumac was<br />
the most widespread species; we found it at 71%<br />
(n = 12) <strong>of</strong> focal points.<br />
We found 354 species at the 13 focal<br />
points where we used both focal-point <strong>and</strong><br />
modified-Whittaker plot survey methods. At<br />
these focal points, species richness varied<br />
among the five community types (F 3,9 = 21.8, P<br />
< 0.001, one-way ANOVA). The Conifer Forest<br />
community had the fewest number <strong>of</strong> species (26<br />
+ 8.3 [SE]) <strong>and</strong> the Sonoran Desertscrub had the<br />
most species (103 + 5.3). The other communities<br />
were intermediate: Oak Savannah (81 + 5.9) <strong>and</strong><br />
Pine-oak woodl<strong>and</strong> (64 + 8.3).<br />
Modified-Whittaker Plots<br />
We recorded 307 species on 13 modified-<br />
Whittaker plots. The mean number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
per plot was 60 + 7.8 (SE) with the range from<br />
97 species in one <strong>of</strong> the Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
plots to 20 species in one <strong>of</strong> the Conifer Forest<br />
plots. Based on the previous classification<br />
<strong>of</strong> plots grouped into community types, we<br />
compared species richness among communities<br />
<strong>and</strong> found differences (F 3,9 = 15.9, P < 0.001,<br />
one-way ANOVA), though sample sizes for each<br />
community were quite low. The Conifer Forest<br />
community had the fewest number <strong>of</strong> species (21<br />
+ 7.9) <strong>and</strong> the Sonoran Desertscrub had the most<br />
species (83 + 5.0). The other communities were<br />
intermediate: Oak Savannah (55 + 5.6) <strong>and</strong> Pineoak<br />
woodl<strong>and</strong> (50 + 7.9).<br />
Point-intercept Transects<br />
We found 189 species on 17 point-intercept<br />
transects. The mean number <strong>of</strong> species at each<br />
20<br />
transect was 28.3 (+ 2.4 [SE]) <strong>and</strong> ranged from 8<br />
to 43 observed. Species richness varied among<br />
the five community types (F 3,9 = 25.5, P < 0.001,<br />
one-way ANOVA) with Oak Savannah having the<br />
highest species richness (40 + 2.2) <strong>and</strong> Conifer<br />
Forest the lowest species richness (10 + 3.2) (Fig.<br />
3.5). The Sonoran Desertscrub (33 + 1.8) <strong>and</strong><br />
Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> (24 + 2.0) were intermediate.<br />
As expected, vertical structure (as<br />
expressed by the total number <strong>of</strong> intercepts in<br />
each <strong>of</strong> the four height categories), was also<br />
different among community types (Fig. 3.5). At<br />
the Sonoran Desertscrub transects, there was<br />
considerable vegetation close to the ground<br />
<strong>and</strong> progressively less vegetation as we moved<br />
through the other layers <strong>of</strong> vegetation. Only<br />
in the most well-developed washes (or with<br />
the inclusion <strong>of</strong> saguaro cactus) is there any<br />
vegetation in the overstory (>4 m). Conversely,<br />
in the high elevation transects <strong>of</strong> the Conifer<br />
Forest community, there is little vegetation in the<br />
understory vegetation classes <strong>and</strong> considerably<br />
more vegetation in the overstory, which consists<br />
<strong>of</strong> tall conifer trees. Vertical structure in the<br />
middle elevation communities shows changes<br />
in structure toward these two extremes. Ground<br />
cover type also reflects this gradient, from<br />
progressively less plant material as one moves up<br />
the elevational gradient to bare ground that shows<br />
the opposite pattern (Fig. 3.6).<br />
Comparison <strong>of</strong> Modified-Whittaker <strong>and</strong> Point-intercept<br />
Transects<br />
Comparing modified-Whittaker plots <strong>and</strong> pointintercept<br />
transects at focal points where we used<br />
both methods (n = 13), we found a mean <strong>of</strong> 60%<br />
(+ 2.7 [SE]) more species on modified-Whittaker<br />
plots. Differences in species richness between<br />
the two methods were most pronounced for the<br />
Sonoran Desertscrub community (67.6 + 2.7)<br />
<strong>and</strong> least pronounced for the Oak Savannah<br />
community (49 + 3.1). The other communities<br />
were more similar to the Desertscrub community:<br />
Conifer Forest (61.6 + 4.3) <strong>and</strong> Pine-oak<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong> (62.5 + 4.3). Within each focal point,<br />
the percent <strong>of</strong> species that were common to both<br />
methods was low (23 + 1.7) <strong>and</strong> did not vary<br />
significantly among community types (F 3,9 = 1.3,
Percent<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Cover<br />
Species Richness<br />
Desertscrub<br />
Oak Savannah<br />
Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
21<br />
Conifer Forest<br />
0-0.5 m<br />
0.5-2.0 m<br />
2.0-4.0 m<br />
>4.0 m<br />
0-0.5 m<br />
0.5-2.0 m<br />
2.0-4.0 m<br />
>4.0 m<br />
Figure 3.5. Summary (mean + SD) <strong>of</strong> data from point-intercept transects by community type <strong>and</strong><br />
height class, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001.<br />
P < 0.32, one-way ANOVA). Finally, the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> species that we found along transects that we<br />
did not find in modified-Whittaker plots was<br />
lowest at the Conifer Forest (3 + 4.5), highest at<br />
the Oak Savannah (20 + 3.1) <strong>and</strong> intermediate at<br />
the Sonoran Desertscrub (13 + 2.8) <strong>and</strong> Pine-oak<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong> (8 + 4.4) plots.<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness<br />
The district’s flora is perhaps the most complete<br />
<strong>of</strong> any large natural area in the Sky Isl<strong>and</strong> region<br />
<strong>of</strong> southeastern Arizona. In our many days <strong>of</strong><br />
collecting, we found 39 previously undocumented<br />
species, which represents a 3.3% increase in the<br />
flora for the district (Appendix A). Almost onehalf<br />
<strong>of</strong> these species were found during the course<br />
<strong>of</strong> conducting surveys at focal points. We also<br />
found a number <strong>of</strong> species on the east slope <strong>of</strong><br />
the Rincon Mountains. Collectively these areas,<br />
particularly those away from hiking trails, are the<br />
least-surveyed areas <strong>of</strong> the district <strong>and</strong> finding<br />
new species there is not surprising.<br />
Assessing overall inventory completeness<br />
is problematic given the size <strong>of</strong> the district <strong>and</strong><br />
difficulty accessing many areas because <strong>of</strong> rough
Percent<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
<strong>Plant</strong><br />
Rock or Bare ground<br />
Desertscrub<br />
Oak Savannah<br />
Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
terrain. Due to the fact that much <strong>of</strong> the district<br />
remains unsurveyed, it is possible that we <strong>and</strong><br />
others have not reached the goal <strong>of</strong> documenting<br />
90% <strong>of</strong> the plant species for the entire district.<br />
However, if we look at inventory effort in<br />
different areas, the completion estimates are<br />
mixed. For example, low-elevation, more easily<br />
accessed areas almost certainly have a species<br />
list that is close to completion. We found only<br />
three new species at or near focal points in the<br />
low-elevation stratum, <strong>and</strong> only one new species<br />
in an area near the Loop Drive, a highly visited<br />
area. The park’s monitoring efforts have had<br />
similar results in low-elevation areas; in their 25<br />
long-term monitoring plots (surveyed for seven<br />
years) park staff have found only 15 new species<br />
for the district (Appendix A). The flora for the<br />
high-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district is similarly<br />
complete. We found only one species in the area<br />
around Manning Camp, an area that has had<br />
extensive plot-level research related to the fireeffects<br />
program. That program has produced<br />
only 30 new species in 15 years <strong>of</strong> surveys <strong>of</strong> 71<br />
plots (<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, unpubl. data). By<br />
contrast, the mid-elevation areas are the least<br />
surveyed <strong>and</strong> our results reflect this; we found<br />
most <strong>of</strong> our new species at focal points in the<br />
middle-elevation stratum (e.g., plots 101 <strong>and</strong> 189<br />
had four <strong>and</strong> three new species for the district,<br />
22<br />
Conifer Forest<br />
Figure 3.6. Percent (mean + SD) ground cover from point-intercept transects by community type,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001.<br />
respectively). These plots were among the most<br />
difficult to reach areas <strong>of</strong> the district (Fig. 3.3).<br />
Based on this evidence, we suggest that the floras<br />
for low- <strong>and</strong> high-elevation areas are nearly<br />
complete <strong>and</strong> that future surveys should focus on<br />
middle-elevation areas, especially the east slope<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains <strong>and</strong> the northeastern<br />
boundary <strong>of</strong> the district.<br />
Efficacy <strong>of</strong> Focal Points<br />
Our plot <strong>and</strong> point-intercept work was insufficient<br />
to describe all <strong>of</strong> the vegetation communities <strong>of</strong><br />
the district. Given the size <strong>of</strong> the district, the<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om location <strong>of</strong> 17 study sites was certain<br />
to miss a number <strong>of</strong> important features <strong>and</strong><br />
areas. These included communities such as the<br />
semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> riparian deciduous<br />
woodl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> many areas such as the east<br />
<strong>and</strong> northeast slopes <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains<br />
(Fig. 3.3). However, the plots <strong>and</strong> transects<br />
were instrumental in (1) establishing long-term<br />
monitoring plots, (2) getting researchers to areas<br />
that had never been visited <strong>and</strong> therefore led to<br />
the discovery <strong>of</strong> new species to the district’s flora,<br />
<strong>and</strong> (3) providing information used in assessing<br />
habitat associations for vertebrates.
Discussion<br />
The Rincon Mountain District’s flora is one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
most complete floras <strong>of</strong> the region <strong>and</strong> it reflects<br />
extraordinary species richness. Here we review<br />
some main determinants <strong>of</strong> species richness,<br />
though a more thorough analysis can be found<br />
in Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987) <strong>and</strong> Bowers<br />
(1984). The most important factors affecting<br />
species richness are the range <strong>of</strong> elevations in the<br />
district <strong>and</strong> biogeographic factors.<br />
The Rincon Mountains have an<br />
elevational range <strong>of</strong> about 1,800 m (5,900<br />
feet). Along the gradient from desert floor to<br />
the highest elevations <strong>of</strong> the range, temperature<br />
<strong>and</strong> rainfall also change, <strong>and</strong> plants respond to<br />
these changes. Aspect is also important, where<br />
high-elevation, north-facing slopes, in particular,<br />
harbor species that would not otherwise occur<br />
in the range, such as Rocky Mountain maple<br />
(Acer glabrum) <strong>and</strong> Arizona valerian (Valeriana<br />
arizonica; See Fig. 2.4). Other features that<br />
play a role in determining local species richness<br />
include seeps <strong>and</strong> springs <strong>and</strong> limestone rock<br />
outcrops, the latter <strong>of</strong> which are responsible for<br />
the presence <strong>of</strong> at least 35 species in the Turkey<br />
Creek area (Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin 1987).<br />
The flora <strong>of</strong> the district is comprised<br />
<strong>of</strong> species from a number <strong>of</strong> biogeographic<br />
regions, most notably the Sonoran, Chihuahuan,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Madrean in the low-elevation areas <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Rocky Mountain <strong>and</strong> Great Plains biogeographic<br />
regions in the high-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district.<br />
Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987) observed that<br />
species richness showed an inverse relationship<br />
to elevation, which was also evident from our<br />
plot <strong>and</strong> transect work (Fig. 3.5). This pattern<br />
is largely the result <strong>of</strong> the biogeographic<br />
influence, where species in low-elevation areas<br />
have distributions that are primarily southern<br />
(<strong>and</strong> represented by Madrean, Sonoran, <strong>and</strong><br />
Chihuahuan biogeographical provinces).<br />
Accordingly, plant species richness increases<br />
towards the Equator. By contrast, most species<br />
in the higher-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district have<br />
greater affinity with northern biogeographical<br />
provinces; this is consistent with the observed<br />
decrease in species richness as one moves north<br />
from the region. These patterns are mirrored in<br />
23<br />
other, nearby mountain ranges (e.g., Whittaker<br />
<strong>and</strong> Niering 1965). In addition to biogeographic<br />
influences, there is also high endemism in the<br />
southwestern United States. McLaughlin (1986)<br />
analyzed species composition from 50 floras from<br />
the region <strong>and</strong> found that over one-half <strong>of</strong> the<br />
species occurred in only one or two <strong>of</strong> the floras.<br />
<strong>Plant</strong> species richness in the Rincon<br />
Mountains is greater than in other nearby<br />
mountain ranges with relatively complete<br />
floras. For example, the Huachuca Mountains,<br />
to the southeast <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains,<br />
contains 929 species (Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin<br />
1996), though the Huachuca Range does not<br />
contain low-elevation Sonoran Desertscrub.<br />
Similarly, the lower species richness for the<br />
Pinaleño Mountains (844 species; Johnson 1988,<br />
McLaughlin 1993, McLaughlin <strong>and</strong> McClaran<br />
2004) is likely explained by the lack <strong>of</strong> species<br />
from the Sonoran <strong>and</strong> Chihuahuan desertscrub<br />
communities, though it is worth noting that the<br />
elevation range is similar to that <strong>of</strong> the Rincon<br />
Mountains. McLaughlin <strong>and</strong> McClaran (2004)<br />
also attribute the low species richness in the<br />
Pinaleños to “comparatively uniform geology <strong>and</strong><br />
topography.”<br />
Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987) cited<br />
41 species that they believed were extirpated<br />
from the district because <strong>of</strong> habitat modification.<br />
Although we looked for them, we did not find<br />
any <strong>of</strong> these species, but our review <strong>of</strong> other<br />
studies <strong>and</strong> localized floras within the district<br />
revealed that six <strong>of</strong> these species have been<br />
found since the publication <strong>of</strong> the Bowers <strong>and</strong><br />
McLaughlin report, including two species <strong>of</strong><br />
rush (Juncus sp.) <strong>and</strong> the alderleaf mountain<br />
mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus). These finds<br />
are encouraging, but as Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin<br />
(1987) note, many <strong>of</strong> the species that are likely<br />
extirpated include a number <strong>of</strong> moisture-loving,<br />
high-elevation plants that may be permanently<br />
lost from the range not only due to habitat<br />
disturbance, but also to global climate change,<br />
which has reduced the annual winter snowpack<br />
that enabled many <strong>of</strong> these species to survive.<br />
Habitat disturbance may have led to<br />
the extirpation <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> species in the<br />
high-elevation area <strong>of</strong> the district, <strong>and</strong> it may<br />
also be impacting other areas <strong>of</strong> the district as
well (Swantek et al. 1999). The most prominent<br />
habitat disturbance in the district is wildl<strong>and</strong> fire.<br />
Since the NPS began keeping records in 1937,<br />
there have been 572 fires in the district <strong>and</strong> the<br />
park has an active prescribed fire program. As<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the program, park personnel monitor<br />
vegetation responses at 71 plots located in the<br />
higher elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district (<strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, unpubl. data). Unfortunately,<br />
there has been no comprehensive report detailing<br />
the results <strong>of</strong> that program, so the effects <strong>of</strong><br />
prescribed fire on the abundance <strong>and</strong> distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> plants in those areas remains largely unknown.<br />
Historically, there have been 35 major wildl<strong>and</strong><br />
fires in the conifer forest near Mica Mountain<br />
from 1770–1990 (Baisan <strong>and</strong> Swetnam 1990).<br />
Other naturally occurring wildl<strong>and</strong> fires have<br />
burned through the district, <strong>and</strong> some have been<br />
in the lower-elevation Sonoran Desertscrub,<br />
which has not historically been subject to<br />
fire (Steenbergh <strong>and</strong> Lowe 1977, Esque et al<br />
2003). This relatively new phenomenon has<br />
resulted from an increase in abundance <strong>of</strong><br />
non-native annual grasses (Schwalbe et al.<br />
1999). Of particular concern to park managers<br />
are the impacts <strong>of</strong> fire on saguaro populations<br />
(Steenbergh <strong>and</strong> Lowe 1977). These concerns<br />
are well founded; in the area <strong>of</strong> the Mother’s Day<br />
fire <strong>of</strong> 1994, Schwalbe et al. (1999) found 22%<br />
mortality <strong>of</strong> saguaro within four years <strong>of</strong> the fire.<br />
This is considered to be a catastrophic event for<br />
such a long-lived cactus species. Wildl<strong>and</strong> fire<br />
has important impacts on other resources <strong>of</strong> the<br />
park such as soil, air quality, <strong>and</strong> animals. We<br />
discuss the impact <strong>of</strong> fire on vertebrates in the<br />
respective chapters.<br />
Additional Research <strong>and</strong> Monitoring Needed<br />
As mentioned earlier, it is likely that most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
new species to be added to the district’s flora<br />
will be found in the middle-elevation areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the district, particularly on the east slope <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Rincon Mountains. In addition, invasive, nonnative<br />
species will likely become established<br />
in high-traffic areas such as the Cactus Forest<br />
Loop Drive <strong>and</strong> Old Spanish Trail, where the<br />
park staff have been surveying for them for four<br />
years. Future funding for the park-based effort<br />
24<br />
is uncertain <strong>and</strong> the SODN I&M program is<br />
establishing protocols for periodic surveys in<br />
these areas. Considerable effort has been focused<br />
on determining the effects <strong>of</strong> fire on the high<br />
elevation plant community <strong>and</strong> we encourage<br />
the park to analyze <strong>and</strong> report the results <strong>of</strong> the<br />
fire-effects monitoring program. Finally, there<br />
are a number <strong>of</strong> long-term monitoring plots for<br />
saguaros that have not been relocated. These <strong>and</strong><br />
other, recently located plots should be resurveyed<br />
periodically. Finally, the district is also in need<br />
<strong>of</strong> a current, detailed vegetation map, which will<br />
likely be created in the next few years by the<br />
I&M program (Andy Hubbard, pers. comm.).<br />
Vegetation monitoring will be an<br />
important component <strong>of</strong> the I&M program at<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park <strong>and</strong> other park units in<br />
the Sonoran Desert Network (Mau-Crimmins<br />
et al. 2005), yet field methods for vegetation<br />
monitoring have not been established. Our use<br />
<strong>of</strong> the modified-Whittaker <strong>and</strong> point-intercept<br />
methods provides data that could inform that<br />
program. If the goal <strong>of</strong> the I&M program is to<br />
monitor species richness or species composition,<br />
a plot-based method such as the modified-<br />
Whittaker may be more appropriate than the<br />
point-intercept method because more species<br />
were observed on plots <strong>and</strong> the point-interecept<br />
transects missed many species in the area <strong>of</strong> the<br />
transects. However, observer bias in estimating<br />
species coverage (a measure <strong>of</strong> dominance) is an<br />
important limitation <strong>of</strong> the modified-Whittaker<br />
<strong>and</strong> similar methods for monitoring that<br />
parameter. In fact, estimation <strong>of</strong> coverage can be<br />
so great as to obscure trend detection for all but<br />
the most extreme changes (Kennedy <strong>and</strong> Addison<br />
1987). Bias can be minimized by reducing the<br />
size <strong>of</strong> the quadrat (Elzinga et al. 2001). With<br />
regard to observer bias, the point-intercept (or the<br />
similar line-intercept method) produce less biased<br />
estimates <strong>of</strong> species coverage because there is<br />
less opportunity for interpretation. Elzinga et<br />
al. (2001) provide an excellent overview <strong>of</strong> the<br />
major survey methods for monitoring vegetation<br />
<strong>and</strong> they include a good discussion <strong>of</strong> observer<br />
bias.<br />
If the goal <strong>of</strong> the monitoring program is<br />
to monitor changes in vegetation structure <strong>and</strong><br />
gross vegetation characteristics (i.e., dominant
plant species), then the point-intercept method<br />
is likely the more appropriate <strong>of</strong> the two<br />
methods. Because we spaced 50 m transects<br />
systematically throughout the 1 km focal point<br />
transect, estimates <strong>of</strong> coverage were likely more<br />
representative <strong>of</strong> the study area than the single<br />
20 m x 50 m modified-Whittaker plot. Further,<br />
accuracy <strong>of</strong> estimates from point-intercept<br />
transects <strong>and</strong> quantification <strong>of</strong> the vegetation<br />
heterogeneity can be assessed by using estimates<br />
from each 50 m transect section. Estimates<br />
<strong>of</strong> accuracy <strong>and</strong> heterogeneity for modified-<br />
Whitaker plots can also be accomplished by<br />
establishing multiple plots.<br />
Powell et al. (2005) <strong>and</strong> others (I&M<br />
program, unpubl. data) used similar field<br />
25<br />
methods as reported here <strong>and</strong> found many<br />
<strong>of</strong> the same patterns with regards to species<br />
richness <strong>and</strong> coverage estimates at nearby<br />
Tumacácori National Historical Park. Their<br />
use <strong>of</strong> “modular” plots (where point-intercept<br />
transects were established within Braun-Blanquet<br />
plots [similar to modified-Whitaker plots; Braun-<br />
Blanquet 1965]) will provide for a more rigorous<br />
comparison <strong>of</strong> those two methods. Regardless<br />
<strong>of</strong> the field method chosen, the use <strong>of</strong> plot or<br />
transect-based field surveys should be used<br />
in combination with remote sensing, which is<br />
becoming an invaluable tool for monitoring<br />
vegetation change (Frohn 1998).
Chapter 4: Amphibian <strong>and</strong> Reptile <strong>Inventory</strong><br />
Aaron D. Flesch, Don E. Swann, <strong>and</strong> Brian F. Powell<br />
Previous Research<br />
Little information is available on the distribution,<br />
abundance, <strong>and</strong> habitat <strong>of</strong> amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles<br />
(hereafter herpet<strong>of</strong>auna) in the Rincon Mountain<br />
District, though the community composition is<br />
well known <strong>and</strong> several species lists exist (Black<br />
1982, Doll et al. 1986, Lowe <strong>and</strong> Holm 1991,<br />
Swann 2004). Because <strong>of</strong> poor documentation,<br />
we do not consider the lists <strong>of</strong> Black (1982)<br />
or Doll et al. (1986). Lowe <strong>and</strong> Holm (1991)<br />
ranked abundance (e.g. rare, uncommon, <strong>and</strong><br />
common) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna in the district, but these<br />
categories were from incidental observations, not<br />
formal surveys within the district. Lowe (1992)<br />
summarized some information on distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
herpet<strong>of</strong>auna in the district but focused mainly<br />
on providing a regional biogeographic context<br />
for underst<strong>and</strong>ing distribution patterns. Goode<br />
et al. (1998) inventoried the district’s Expansion<br />
Area in Rincon Valley <strong>and</strong> Murray (1996) <strong>and</strong><br />
Swann (1999b) inventoried both the Expansion<br />
Area <strong>and</strong> the nearby Rocking K Ranch <strong>and</strong><br />
provided detailed information for these areas.<br />
Most recently, Bonine <strong>and</strong> Schwalbe (2003)<br />
inventoried the Madrona Pools <strong>of</strong> Chimenea<br />
Creek but their effort was limited to only five<br />
days in May. There have also been a number <strong>of</strong><br />
single-species studies in the district, including<br />
those for the lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog (Swann 1997,<br />
27<br />
Swann et al. 2003b, Goldberg et al. 2004, Eric<br />
Wallace, unpubl. data), desert tortoise (Swann<br />
et al. 2002, Stitt et al. 2003, Edwards et al. 2004,<br />
Jones et al. 2005), <strong>and</strong> tiger rattlesnake (Matt<br />
Goode, unpubl. data). Because most previous<br />
studies have been limited either spatially or<br />
temporally, the inventory effort summarized<br />
in this report represents the first attempt to<br />
quantify distribution <strong>and</strong> abundance <strong>and</strong> provide<br />
information on habitat <strong>of</strong> all amphibian <strong>and</strong><br />
reptile species in the district.<br />
Methods<br />
We surveyed herpet<strong>of</strong>auna in 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002<br />
using four field methods: (1) plot-based intensive<br />
surveys, (2) non-plot based extensive surveys<br />
(Table 4.1), (3) road surveys, <strong>and</strong> (4) incidental<br />
observations. We used multiple methods<br />
to ensure coverage across a broad range <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental features <strong>and</strong> to facilitate complete<br />
species lists <strong>and</strong> estimates <strong>of</strong> relative abundance.<br />
We chose the location <strong>of</strong> intensive surveys (at<br />
focal-point transects) using a stratified r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
design <strong>and</strong> stratified by elevation (see Chapter<br />
1) then constrained surveys by time <strong>and</strong> area<br />
(Crump <strong>and</strong> Scott 1994). We chose the location<br />
<strong>of</strong> extensive surveys both r<strong>and</strong>omly <strong>and</strong> nonr<strong>and</strong>omly;<br />
some extensive surveys were located<br />
Table 4.1. Characteristics <strong>of</strong> three major active survey methods used during surveys for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Survey type<br />
Characteristic Intensive, plot-based Extensive – R<strong>and</strong>om Extensive – Non-r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om location Yes Partially No<br />
Area constrained Yes No No<br />
Configuration Plot based visual encounter Non-plot based visual encounter Non-plot based visual encounter<br />
Area (ha) three 1-ha plots per transect Variable Variable<br />
Time constrained Yes, 1 hour No No<br />
Time <strong>of</strong> day Morning Morning Morning, afternoon, <strong>and</strong> evening<br />
Advantages Facilitates comparison with other areas,<br />
scope <strong>of</strong> inference to entire park, more<br />
complete richness <strong>and</strong> abundance data<br />
Disadvantages Inefficient for developing complete<br />
species list<br />
Larger scope <strong>of</strong> inference <strong>and</strong> potential<br />
to detect less common species<br />
Inefficient for developing complete<br />
species list<br />
Maximum flexibility facilitating<br />
detection <strong>of</strong> rare species with<br />
restricted distributions<br />
Scope <strong>of</strong> inference applies only to<br />
those areas surveyed
near intensive plots, but most were in areas we<br />
thought would have high species richness, species<br />
<strong>of</strong> special interest, or species suspected to be in<br />
the district that had not previously been recorded<br />
(e.g., the rock rattlesnake). Extensive surveys<br />
were more flexible <strong>and</strong> allowed for variation in<br />
survey time <strong>and</strong> area. For road <strong>and</strong> extensive<br />
surveys, we surveyed in evenings <strong>and</strong> nights to<br />
detect species with restricted activity periods<br />
(Ivanyi et al. 2000). Although we designed<br />
methods to detect both amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles,<br />
we detected fewer amphibians because they<br />
have more limited activity periods <strong>and</strong> are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
restricted to aquatic environments, which are rare<br />
in the district.<br />
Intensive Surveys<br />
Field Methods<br />
At focal-point transects (hereafter “transects”)<br />
in 2001, we used plot-based visual encounter<br />
surveys constrained by time <strong>and</strong> area (Crump<br />
<strong>and</strong> Scott 1994) along 17 transects (Figs. 4.1,<br />
4.2). Along each transect we surveyed within<br />
the confines <strong>of</strong> three 1-ha (100 x 100 m) subplots<br />
during spring (9 April - 24 May) or two subplots<br />
during the summer monsoon (18–31 July) <strong>and</strong><br />
searched each subplot for one hour. We surveyed<br />
only two subplots in summer because there<br />
was not sufficient time during peak activity<br />
periods to search all three subplots. Although<br />
Focal<br />
Point<br />
Transect<br />
line<br />
1000 m<br />
28<br />
we surveyed all 17 transects in spring only seven<br />
transects were surveyed in summer <strong>and</strong> these<br />
were located only in low (n = 3) <strong>and</strong> middle (n<br />
= 4) elevation strata. We selected survey times<br />
that coincided with periods <strong>of</strong> peak diurnal<br />
reptile activity because activity levels vary with<br />
temperature (Rosen 2000). On cooler spring days<br />
we began our surveys between 0718 <strong>and</strong> 1421<br />
hours whereas on hotter, summer days we began<br />
between 0642 <strong>and</strong> 1014 hours. To account for<br />
within-day variation in detectability <strong>and</strong> to reduce<br />
variation among observers, we surveyed each<br />
subplot twice per day by a different observer. We<br />
did not survey during evenings or nights.<br />
We searched subplots visually <strong>and</strong> aurally<br />
<strong>and</strong> worked systematically across each subplot<br />
<strong>and</strong> used a Garmin E-map GPS to ensure we<br />
stayed within subplot boundaries during surveys.<br />
We also looked under rocks <strong>and</strong> litter <strong>and</strong> used<br />
a mirror to illuminate cracks <strong>and</strong> crevices. For<br />
each animal detected, we recorded species, sex<br />
<strong>and</strong> age/size class (if known), <strong>and</strong> microhabitat<br />
(ground, vegetation, rock, edifice, burrow, or<br />
water). We marked subplot corners with rubbercapped<br />
stakes <strong>and</strong> recorded UTM coordinates<br />
with a Trimble GPS. We recorded temperature,<br />
wind speed (km/h), percent relative humidity,<br />
<strong>and</strong> percent cloud cover using h<strong>and</strong>-held Kestrel<br />
3000 weather meters (Nielson-Kellerman Inc.,<br />
Boothwyn, PA) before <strong>and</strong> after surveys. We also<br />
described vegetation <strong>and</strong> soils.<br />
Plot Number<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />
Figure 4.1. Layout <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna survey plots along focal-point transects, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001. We typically surveyed three, 100 x 100 m subplots (dotted boxes) in the<br />
spring <strong>and</strong> two subplots (1 <strong>and</strong> 10) in the summer. When topography prevented surveys in a subplot, we<br />
surveyed an adjacent subplot.<br />
100 m<br />
100 m
Figure 4.2. Locations <strong>of</strong> intensive <strong>and</strong> extensive survey sites for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Table 4.2. Herpet<strong>of</strong>aunal survey effort by year, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
2001 2002<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> samples<br />
Method Elevation range (m) (subsamples) a<br />
Survey No. <strong>of</strong> samples<br />
hours (subsamples) a<br />
Survey<br />
hours<br />
Intensive survey 936 – 2,560 17(51) 131.0<br />
Extensive survey – r<strong>and</strong>om 850 – 2,119 22 88.0<br />
Extensive survey – non-r<strong>and</strong>om 818 – 2,634 58 359.2 5 18.0<br />
Road survey 53 45.8 2 0.5<br />
a No. <strong>of</strong> subsamples for r<strong>and</strong>om surveys equals number <strong>of</strong> subplots per focal-point transect for intensive surveys, number <strong>of</strong> survey<br />
areas for extensive surveys.<br />
29
Effort<br />
We completed 131 surveys at 51 subplots located<br />
along the 17 focal-point transects (Table 4.2, Fig.<br />
4.2). In 2002 we discontinued intensive surveys<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the relatively low number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
detected.<br />
Analysis<br />
We calculated relative abundance <strong>of</strong> each species<br />
for each transect by summing all detections<br />
within the two or three subplots surveyed per<br />
transect. Because subplots were surveyed twice<br />
per day, we accounted for within-day variation<br />
in detectability by using the maximum number<br />
<strong>of</strong> individuals detected on either survey for each<br />
visit because it represented abundance when<br />
detectability was highest (Rosen <strong>and</strong> Lowe 1995).<br />
We estimated relative abundance (no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong><br />
each species (<strong>and</strong> all species combined) within<br />
the district by averaging the maximum number<br />
<strong>of</strong> individuals detected on repeated visits to<br />
each transect, <strong>and</strong> then averaging results from<br />
all transects. To compare relative abundance<br />
<strong>of</strong> each species (<strong>and</strong> all individuals combined)<br />
among elevation strata, we compared the average,<br />
maximum number detected on all 17 transects<br />
surveyed in spring among elevation strata using<br />
ANOVA. To compare relative abundance<br />
between seasons, we compared the average,<br />
maximum number detected between seasons for<br />
the seven transects surveyed in both spring <strong>and</strong><br />
summer (transect nos. 101, 106, 111, 112, 115,<br />
130, <strong>and</strong> 139) using paired t-tests. We did not<br />
30<br />
compare estimates from summer among strata<br />
because only low- <strong>and</strong>-middle elevation transects<br />
were surveyed <strong>and</strong> sample sizes were small.<br />
To determine environmental factors that<br />
explained variation in relative abundance <strong>of</strong><br />
species <strong>and</strong> species groups <strong>and</strong> species richness,<br />
we used multiple linear regression with stepwise<br />
selection (P < 0.20 to enter, P < 0.05 to stay) <strong>and</strong><br />
22 potential explanatory factors (Table 4.3; from<br />
point-intercept vegetation sampling; see Chapter<br />
3). Because data for most species were limited,<br />
we only considered those with ≥15 observations<br />
<strong>and</strong> combined all species <strong>of</strong> whiptails <strong>and</strong> all<br />
other species <strong>of</strong> lizards except whiptails in<br />
analyses. We screened explanatory factors before<br />
modeling <strong>and</strong> retained only what we judged to<br />
be the most biologically meaningful factor from<br />
correlated pairs (r > 0.75) <strong>and</strong> used Cp statistics<br />
to guide model selection (Ramsey <strong>and</strong> Schafer<br />
2002). Where necessary, we transformed factors<br />
using log(x) or log(x + 1) to improve normality.<br />
Extensive Surveys<br />
Non-plot based extensive surveys (referred to<br />
as “special areas” in Powell et al. 2002, 2003)<br />
facilitated sampling in areas where we expected<br />
high species richness, abundance, or species<br />
not previously detected. Typically, we selected<br />
areas for extensive surveys in canyons or riparian<br />
areas, <strong>and</strong> also included ridgelines, cliffs, rock<br />
piles, bajadas, summits, or other physiographic<br />
Table 4.3. Environmental factors considered when modeling variation in relative abundance <strong>of</strong> species<br />
<strong>and</strong> species groups <strong>and</strong> species richness <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna, using stepwise multiple linear regression,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Data from point-intercept transects<br />
(height category) <strong>and</strong> modified-Whittaker plots (plots).<br />
Height category<br />
Environmental factor (units) basal 0-0.5 m 0.5-2.0 m 2.0-4.0 m >4.0 m plot<br />
Bare ground cover (%) x<br />
Rock cover (%) x<br />
Forb cover (%) x x x<br />
Grass cover (%) x x x<br />
Tree cover (%) x x x x<br />
Shrub cover (%) x x x x<br />
Vegetation cover (all life forms, %) x x x x<br />
<strong>Plant</strong> species richness (no.) x<br />
Slope (%) x
features. We based extensive surveys on visual<br />
encounters (Crump <strong>and</strong> Scott 1994) <strong>and</strong>, in<br />
contrast to intensive surveys, did not constrain<br />
surveys by area or time. We focused extensive<br />
surveys during mornings <strong>and</strong> also surveyed<br />
during evenings <strong>and</strong> nights in low-elevation areas<br />
when detectability <strong>of</strong> snakes <strong>and</strong> amphibians is<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten highest (Ivanyi et al. 2000), <strong>and</strong> during midday<br />
at higher elevations.<br />
Field Methods<br />
We selected areas r<strong>and</strong>omly <strong>and</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>omly<br />
(Table 4.1). We placed r<strong>and</strong>om survey areas<br />
within approximately 1 to 2 km <strong>of</strong> focal point<br />
transects, <strong>and</strong> surveyed each area once. We<br />
selected non-r<strong>and</strong>om areas by using topographic<br />
maps <strong>and</strong> prior knowledge <strong>of</strong> the district. We<br />
relied upon visual detection <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten looked<br />
under objects <strong>and</strong> illuminated cracks to detect<br />
hidden individuals. We surveyed in spring (4<br />
April – 24 May) <strong>and</strong> summer (25 June – 20<br />
September) <strong>of</strong> 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. One, two, or three<br />
observers searched each area simultaneously<br />
<strong>and</strong> recorded data separately. Total duration <strong>of</strong><br />
surveys among all observers combined averaged<br />
5.5 ± 0.4 (± SE) hours per survey (range = 1.2<br />
- 20.4 hours). We recorded data using similar<br />
methods as intensive surveys <strong>and</strong> noted UTM<br />
coordinates <strong>and</strong> elevation at the start <strong>and</strong> end<br />
points <strong>of</strong> each survey.<br />
Effort<br />
We surveyed 85 areas in 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002 (Fig.<br />
4.2), 94.1% <strong>of</strong> which were surveyed in 2001<br />
(Table 4.2). Total survey effort was 465.2 hours,<br />
81% <strong>of</strong> which was in non-r<strong>and</strong>om areas. Survey<br />
effort was roughly three times greater than<br />
for other methods <strong>and</strong> focused mainly during<br />
daylight except at lower elevations where we also<br />
surveyed during late evenings <strong>and</strong> nights. We did<br />
not survey higher elevation areas in late evenings<br />
<strong>and</strong> at night because detectability declined<br />
markedly with elevation.<br />
Analysis<br />
We calculated relative abundance for each area<br />
as the number <strong>of</strong> individuals detected for each<br />
species or all species combined per 10 hours <strong>of</strong><br />
effort. For surveys completed by >1 observer<br />
31<br />
per area, we summed survey times <strong>and</strong> detection<br />
data for all surveyors when calculating effort <strong>and</strong><br />
relative abundance for an area. Although some<br />
locations were surveyed multiple times, survey<br />
routes <strong>of</strong>ten varied <strong>and</strong> we therefore considered<br />
each survey an independent sample despite some<br />
spatial overlap. To describe general patterns <strong>of</strong><br />
relative abundance for species groups (lizards,<br />
snakes, <strong>and</strong> amphibians) <strong>and</strong> species richness<br />
across the district, we post-stratified survey<br />
areas by elevation (low = 6,000 feet) using the<br />
median elevation <strong>of</strong> all animal observations for<br />
each survey. We then tested for variation among<br />
strata using one-, two-, or multi-way ANOVA.<br />
Because relative abundance <strong>and</strong> species richness<br />
varied between day <strong>and</strong> night <strong>and</strong> no areas<br />
were surveyed during night at middle <strong>and</strong> high<br />
elevations, we limited comparisons only to<br />
days. To describe patterns <strong>of</strong> relative abundance<br />
<strong>of</strong> individual species across elevation, we used<br />
multiple linear regression. We transformed<br />
relative abundance values when necessary<br />
using log(x) or log(x + 1) to improve normality.<br />
Because patterns <strong>of</strong> relative abundance <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
varied with relative humidity (or cloud cover),<br />
season, <strong>and</strong> time <strong>of</strong> day, we adjusted for these<br />
factors when they explained variation (P ≤<br />
0.10) in relative abundance. To describe cloud<br />
cover, relative humidity, <strong>and</strong> temperature for<br />
each area, we averaged measurements taken at<br />
the beginning <strong>and</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each survey. To adjust<br />
for temporal variation in relative abundance<br />
<strong>and</strong> richness across time <strong>of</strong> day, we considered<br />
three time periods: day, late evening or night, or<br />
surveys that spanned portions <strong>of</strong> both periods<br />
(day equaled reference level). We considered<br />
20-min before local sunset time as the cut-point<br />
between day <strong>and</strong> late evening or night surveys.<br />
To adjust for seasonal variation in relative<br />
abundance <strong>and</strong> richness, we considered two<br />
seasons, spring <strong>and</strong> summer (spring equaled<br />
reference level). Because relative humidity <strong>and</strong><br />
cloud cover were strongly correlated (r = 0.76,<br />
P < 0.0001) we only adjusted for the factor that<br />
explained the most variation in responses.
Road Surveys<br />
Road surveys involve driving slowly along a<br />
road, typically after sunset, <strong>and</strong> watching for<br />
animals. Such surveys are a common method<br />
for estimating distribution <strong>and</strong> abundance<br />
<strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>and</strong> are recommended for<br />
augmenting species lists (Shaffer <strong>and</strong> Juterbock<br />
1994).<br />
Field Methods<br />
We focused mainly on the Cactus Forest Loop<br />
Drive <strong>and</strong> also drove Speedway Boulevard from<br />
Douglas Spring Trailhead to the intersection with<br />
Tanque Verde Loop Road <strong>and</strong> Camino Loma<br />
Alta from the trailhead to Old Spanish Trail. We<br />
recorded each individual detected by species<br />
<strong>and</strong> whether animals were alive or dead. We<br />
surveyed 29 April – 18 August 2001 <strong>and</strong> 9 – 14<br />
July 2002 during nights <strong>and</strong> occasionally during<br />
evenings.<br />
Effort<br />
We conducted 55 road surveys totaling 46.3 hours<br />
<strong>of</strong> effort (Table 4.2).<br />
Analysis<br />
Because survey routes varied in length <strong>and</strong><br />
included a number <strong>of</strong> different segments surveyed<br />
in various orders, we combined results from<br />
all routes <strong>and</strong> road segments. Total mileage<br />
for each route was not recorded so we scaled<br />
estimates <strong>of</strong> relative abundance by time. We<br />
calculated relative abundance as the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> individuals detected for each species (or all<br />
species combined) per hour <strong>of</strong> effort. We also<br />
compared relative abundance <strong>of</strong> species groups<br />
across months using ANOVA <strong>and</strong> linear contrasts.<br />
We log (x + 1) transformed relative abundance to<br />
improve normality.<br />
Incidental Observations<br />
We noted sightings <strong>of</strong> rare or important species<br />
by sex <strong>and</strong> age/size class (if known) <strong>and</strong> recorded<br />
time <strong>of</strong> observations <strong>and</strong> UTM coordinates<br />
for all detections. These incidental detections<br />
were <strong>of</strong>ten recorded before or after more formal<br />
surveys <strong>and</strong> we use these sightings to determine<br />
32<br />
species presence <strong>and</strong> richness. We also used<br />
incidental sightings from other field crews (e.g.,<br />
birds).<br />
Species Identification Challenges<br />
Whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus [Aspidoscelus<br />
by some sources] spp.) are notoriously difficult<br />
to identify in the field because <strong>of</strong> the similarity<br />
in appearance for several sympatric species<br />
(Stebbins 2003). Many parthenogenetic (nonsexually<br />
reproducing) whiptails may have arisen<br />
as hybrids from the same diploid, sexually<br />
reproducing parent species (Degenhardt et al.<br />
1996). Several undescribed “parthenospecies”<br />
may exist in the desert Southwest (Wright <strong>and</strong><br />
Vitt 1993, Cole <strong>and</strong> Dessauer 1994). Some<br />
individuals we identified as western (C. tigris) or<br />
Sonoran spotted (C. sonorae) whiptails may be<br />
undescribed “species” related to these recognized<br />
species.<br />
In the district we saw “classic” Sonoran<br />
spotted whiptails (adults with six longitudinal<br />
dorsal stripes, light spots in dark <strong>and</strong> occasionally<br />
light dorsal areas; dorsal stripes more yellow<br />
anteriorly; overall color brown dorsally <strong>and</strong><br />
unmarked white-cream ventrally; tail more<br />
brownish-orange than bluish as seen in Gila<br />
spotted whiptails; Degenhardt et al. 1996, Phil<br />
Rosen pers. obs.). We also observed a variation<br />
<strong>of</strong> this classic appearance that superficially<br />
resembled Gila spotted whiptails, with some<br />
captured individuals keying out to be this<br />
species based on characteristics noted in field<br />
guides, including number <strong>of</strong> pre-anal scales,<br />
location <strong>of</strong> spots in light stripes, <strong>and</strong> greenish tail<br />
(Stebbins 2003). Although the Rincon Mountains<br />
are considered outside the range <strong>of</strong> the Gila<br />
spotted whiptail, in this document we report<br />
these individuals as this species, <strong>and</strong> report the<br />
“classic” Sonoran whiptails described above as<br />
Sonoran spotted whiptails.<br />
Results<br />
We detected 46 species <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna; seven<br />
amphibians <strong>and</strong> 39 reptile species (Appendix
B). Reptilian species included two turtle, 19<br />
lizard, <strong>and</strong> 18 snake species. Species richness<br />
was highest for incidental (n = 43) <strong>and</strong> extensive<br />
surveys (n = 39) <strong>and</strong> lowest for intensive (n =<br />
25) <strong>and</strong> road surveys (n = 22). We found seven<br />
species with only a single survey method, but<br />
all other species were found with two or more<br />
methods. Road <strong>and</strong> extensive surveys each<br />
yielded detection <strong>of</strong> one species that was not<br />
detected by using other methods (Great Plains<br />
toad, <strong>and</strong> Great Plains skink, respectively) <strong>and</strong><br />
incidental surveys yielded detection <strong>of</strong> five<br />
species not detected by using other methods<br />
(Mexican spadefoot, canyon spotted whiptail,<br />
ring-necked snake, western ground snake, <strong>and</strong><br />
Mojave rattlesnake). All 25 species that we<br />
detected during intensive surveys were detected<br />
using other methods, although Madrean alligator<br />
lizard was detected only during intensive <strong>and</strong><br />
extensive surveys.<br />
We detected 4,292 individuals during<br />
this study – 3,066 during intensive, extensive,<br />
<strong>and</strong> road surveys combined, <strong>and</strong> 1,225 incidental<br />
observations (Appendix B). Most individuals<br />
(1,909) were detected during extensive surveys<br />
<strong>and</strong> fewest (469) were detected during road<br />
surveys (Table 4.4). The number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />
detected per unit time was greatest for road<br />
surveys (mean = 14.9 individuals/hr) markedly<br />
higher than for extensive (4.1 individuals/hr)<br />
or intensive (3.6 individuals/hr) surveys. The<br />
species with the most detections (all methods<br />
combined) was the ornate tree lizard (n = 750).<br />
We recorded 11 species
Table 4.5. Relative abundance (mean + SE; no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during intensive surveys<br />
in spring (9 April - 24 May) along focal point-transects by elevation strata, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001. Species for which there are no detections were detected only in summer (18-31 July) in<br />
low- <strong>and</strong>/or middle-elevation strata.<br />
Elevation stratum<br />
Low (n = 5) Middle (n = 7) High (n = 5) All (n = 17)<br />
Species Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE<br />
Sonoran Desert toad<br />
canyon treefrog<br />
desert tortoise 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.02<br />
western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02<br />
eastern collared lizard 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.02<br />
greater earless lizard 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.04<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard 1.13 0.47 1.00 0.29 0.07 0.07 0.76 0.21<br />
eastern fence lizard 0.62 0.29 1.00 0.11 0.55 0.15<br />
common side-blotched lizard 0.20 0.08 0.06 0.03<br />
ornate tree lizard 2.47 0.74 2.62 0.72 0.93 0.37 2.08 0.41<br />
unknown whiptail 1.73 0.52 0.57 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.76 0.24<br />
Sonoran spotted whiptail 0.33 0.18 0.48 0.10 0.29 0.08<br />
Gila spotted whiptail 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.18 0.29 0.09<br />
western whiptail 0.47 0.00 0.14 0.09<br />
Madrean alligator lizard 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03<br />
coachwhip<br />
Sonoran whipsnake 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03<br />
western patch-nosed snake<br />
black-necked garter snake 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.03<br />
western diamond-backed rattlesnake<br />
black-tailed rattlesnake<br />
tiger rattlesnake<br />
western rattlesnake 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.03<br />
all individuals 5.87 0.75 5.00 0.95 2.00 0.42 4.37 0.59<br />
Species richness <strong>and</strong> relative abundance<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten varied among elevation strata (Table 4.5).<br />
Species richness was highest at lower elevation<br />
(5.2 ± 0.5), moderate at middle elevation (4.3<br />
± 0.4), <strong>and</strong> low at the high elevation (2.8 ± 0.5)<br />
(F 2,14 = 6.86, P = 0.0084, ANOVA). Relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> all individuals combined varied<br />
among elevation strata <strong>and</strong> patterns were similar<br />
to those for species richness (F 2,14 = 5.62, P =<br />
0.016), yet relative abundance was similar at low-<br />
<strong>and</strong> middle-elevation strata (t 14 = 0.77, P = 0.46,<br />
linear contrast; Table 4.5). The common sideblotched<br />
lizard, greater earless lizard, <strong>and</strong> western<br />
whiptail were found only in the low-elevation<br />
stratum (F 2,14 ≥ 2.78, P ≤ 0.096) whereas relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> the Clark’s spiny lizard <strong>and</strong><br />
Sonoran spotted whiptail were similar at low-<br />
<strong>and</strong> middle-elevation strata <strong>and</strong> were either rare<br />
(Clark’s spiny) or did not occur (Sonoran spotted)<br />
34<br />
at the high-elevation stratum (F 2,14 ≥ 3.07, P ≤<br />
0.079). Eastern fence lizards were not found at<br />
the low-elevation stratum <strong>and</strong> relative abundance<br />
was roughly two times higher at the high- as<br />
compared to the middle-elevation stratum (F 2,14<br />
= 4.63, P = 0.029). Relative abundance seemed<br />
to vary among elevation strata for other species<br />
(Table 4.5), though detections were too few for<br />
quantitative comparisons.<br />
Species richness <strong>and</strong> relative abundance<br />
varied between seasons for some species <strong>and</strong><br />
species groups. Species richness for all taxa<br />
combined averaged 5.0 ± 0.5 species/ transect<br />
in both spring <strong>and</strong> summer (t 6 = 0.33, P = 0.38,<br />
paired t-test) yet species richness <strong>of</strong> lizards in<br />
spring (4.3 ± 0.4) averaged 0.9 species greater<br />
than in summer (t 6 = 2.12, P = 0.039). Relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> all species combined did not vary<br />
between seasons (t 6 = 0.27, P = 0.40) yet relative
Table 4.6. Relative abundance (mean + SE; no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during intensive surveys<br />
along r<strong>and</strong>om transects (n = 7) surveyed in both spring (9 April – 8 May) <strong>and</strong> summer (18 – 31 July),<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001.<br />
Spring (n = 7) Summer (n = 7) All seasons<br />
Species Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE<br />
Sonoran Desert toad 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.21<br />
canyon treefrog 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
desert tortoise 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02<br />
western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02<br />
eastern collared lizard 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
greater earless lizard 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.08<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard 1.24 0.33 1.93 0.70 1.58 0.39<br />
common side-blotched lizard 0.14 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.05<br />
ornate tree lizard 2.14 0.43 1.14 0.48 1.64 0.34<br />
unknown whiptail 1.43 0.43 0.21 0.15 0.82 0.28<br />
Sonoran spotted whiptail 0.48 0.16 0.50 0.29 0.49 0.16<br />
Gila spotted whiptail 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.15 0.21 0.10<br />
western whiptail 0.33 0.19 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.11<br />
Madrean alligator lizard 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.03<br />
coachwhip 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
Sonoran whipsnake 0.10 0.06 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.05<br />
western patch-nosed snake 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
black-necked garter snake 0.10 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.08<br />
western diamond-backed rattlesnake 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
black-tailed rattlesnake 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
tiger rattlesnake 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04<br />
western rattlesnake 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02<br />
all individuals 5.48 0.68 5.07 1.33 5.27 0.72<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> ornate tree lizards <strong>and</strong> all whiptail<br />
lizards combined were roughly two times greater<br />
in the spring (t 6 ≥ 1.91, P ≤ 0.53) (Table 4.6). The<br />
desert tortoise, western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko, Madrean<br />
alligator lizard, <strong>and</strong> western rattlesnake were<br />
detected only in spring, whereas the Sonoran<br />
Desert toad, canyon treefrog, coachwhip, <strong>and</strong><br />
western diamond-backed, black-tailed, <strong>and</strong> tiger<br />
rattlesnakes were detected only in summer (Table<br />
4.6). Eastern collared lizards were not detected<br />
in spring except in the high-elevation stratum<br />
(Table 4.5). Some <strong>of</strong> these patterns may have<br />
been the result <strong>of</strong> low sample size, because in the<br />
cases <strong>of</strong> western rattlesnake <strong>and</strong> collared lizards,<br />
the patterns that we observed are opposite to the<br />
known natural history <strong>of</strong> each species.<br />
Environmental factors that explained<br />
patterns <strong>of</strong> species richness <strong>and</strong> relative<br />
abundance varied (Table 4.7). Snake richness<br />
increased with cover <strong>of</strong> grasses whereas lizard<br />
richness decreased with increasing cover <strong>of</strong><br />
bare ground. Species richness <strong>of</strong> snakes <strong>and</strong><br />
35<br />
lizards increased with shrub cover above<br />
2 m, though influence <strong>of</strong> shrub cover was<br />
much greater for snakes; richness <strong>of</strong> lizards<br />
decreased with tree cover between 0.5 <strong>and</strong> 2.0<br />
m. Relative abundance (no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> all lizard<br />
species combined declined with increasing<br />
cover <strong>of</strong> bare ground. For all lizards excluding<br />
whiptails, however, relative abundance decreased<br />
as grass cover between 0.5 <strong>and</strong> 2.0 m above<br />
ground increased, whereas for whiptails relative<br />
abundance decreased as vegetation cover between<br />
0.5 <strong>and</strong> 2.0 m <strong>of</strong> all plant types combined<br />
increased. In contrast to patterns for all species<br />
<strong>of</strong> lizards combined, relative abundance <strong>of</strong><br />
eastern fence lizards increased with increasing<br />
cover <strong>of</strong> bare ground. Relative abundance <strong>of</strong><br />
the Sonoran spotted whiptail <strong>and</strong> Clark’s spiny<br />
lizard was positively associated with forb cover<br />
between 0 <strong>and</strong> 0.5 m above ground, whereas<br />
relative abundance <strong>of</strong> ornate tree lizards was<br />
positively associated with grass cover in the same<br />
vegetation stratum. Relative abundance was not
Table 4.7. Environmental factors that explained relative abundance (no./ha/hr) <strong>of</strong> species (with >15<br />
observations), species groups, <strong>and</strong> species richness <strong>of</strong> lizards <strong>and</strong> snakes detected during intensive<br />
surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, spring 2001.<br />
Category<br />
Species or group<br />
Environmental factor<br />
Relative abundance<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard<br />
estimate<br />
SE<br />
t<br />
P<br />
Forb cover 0-0.5 m above ground (%) 0.13 0.05 2.53 0.024<br />
Tree cover 0-0.5 m above ground (%)<br />
eastern fence lizard<br />
-0.25 0.10 2.51 0.025<br />
Bare ground basal cover (%) 0.04 0.01 5.93
Table 4.8. Relative abundance (mean + SE; no./10 hrs) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during extensive surveys<br />
(n = 85), by elevation strata, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Parenthetical<br />
numbers are sample sizes for number <strong>of</strong> survey areas.<br />
Low (n = 50)<br />
Elevation stratum<br />
Middle (n = 23) High (n = 12)<br />
All (n = 85)<br />
Species mean SE mean SE mean SE mean SE<br />
Couch’s spadefoot 1.36 1.06 0.80 0.63<br />
Sonoran Desert toad 4.97 2.19 2.92 1.31<br />
red-spotted toad 1.90 0.86 0.10 0.10 1.13 0.52<br />
canyon treefrog 2.50 0.53 11.15 5.83 4.29 3.28 5.10 1.69<br />
lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog 1.80 1.04 0.33 0.33 1.15 0.62<br />
Sonoran mud turtle 0.91 0.42 0.84 0.48 0.76 0.28<br />
desert tortoise 0.53 0.20 0.35 0.26 0.41 0.14<br />
western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko 0.39 0.15 0.23 0.09<br />
eastern collared lizard 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.08<br />
lesser earless lizard 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05<br />
greater earless lizard 1.43 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.94 0.23<br />
zebra-tailed lizard 2.29 1.14 1.35 0.68<br />
desert spiny lizard 0.87 0.27 0.51 0.17<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard 4.59 0.87 3.41 1.27 0.33 0.33 3.67 0.63<br />
eastern fence lizard 4.16 1.54 6.20 2.37 2.00 0.59<br />
common side-blotched lizard 3.94 1.22 2.32 0.75<br />
ornate tree lizard 10.03 2.61 10.47 2.33 1.65 0.95 8.96 1.69<br />
greater short-horned lizard 0.44 0.30 0.06 0.04<br />
regal horned lizard 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.06<br />
Great Plains skink 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02<br />
unknown whiptail 1.25 0.48 1.08 0.39 1.03 0.30<br />
Sonoran spotted whiptail 3.40 1.40 1.38 0.61 2.37 0.85<br />
Gila spotted whiptail 0.26 0.13 1.36 0.92 0.42 0.28 0.58 0.26<br />
western whiptail 1.44 0.68 0.84 0.41<br />
Madrean alligator lizard 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.37 0.08 0.05<br />
Gila monster 0.57 0.25 0.33 0.15<br />
coachwhip 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.07<br />
Sonoran whipsnake 0.15 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.07<br />
western patch-nosed snake 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02<br />
mountain patch-nosed snake 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02<br />
gopher snake 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.03<br />
common kingsnake 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01<br />
Sonoran mountain kingsnake 0.08 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.05<br />
long-nosed snake 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.03<br />
black-necked garter snake 2.85 1.38 1.77 0.76 0.19 0.19 2.18 0.84<br />
Sonoran coral snake 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02<br />
western diamond-backed rattlesnake 1.62 0.41 0.95 0.26<br />
black-tailed rattlesnake 0.23 0.12 0.64 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.12<br />
tiger rattlesnake 0.62 0.22 0.36 0.14<br />
western rattlesnake 0.03 0.03 0.56 0.24 0.77 0.66 0.28 0.12<br />
all individuals 53.73 6.05 39.80 7.69 15.89 4.22 44.62 4.37<br />
species richness 34.00 18.00 13.00 39.00<br />
did vary for lizards (F 2,47 = 14.6, P < 0.0001,<br />
ANOVA), with 2.3 times more species detected<br />
during day (4.8 ± 0.4) than other periods.<br />
Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> amphibians<br />
increased by 1.2 ± 0.6 individuals/10 hours with<br />
each 10% increase in cloud cover after adjusting<br />
37<br />
for the influence <strong>of</strong> survey time (t 79 = 1.96, P =<br />
0.054, test <strong>of</strong> slope from regression). In contrast,<br />
relative abundance <strong>of</strong> lizards decreased by 2.2 ±<br />
0.7 individuals/10 hours with each 10% increase<br />
in cloud cover after adjusting for survey time <strong>and</strong><br />
elevation (t 77 = 3.21, P = 0.0019) but did not vary
Table 4.9. Relative abundance (no./hr) <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna detected during road surveys,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Species mean SE<br />
Couch’s spadefoot toad 1.74 1.38<br />
Sonoran desert toad 5.74 1.52<br />
red-spotted toad 6.04 1.64<br />
Great Plains toad 0.06 0.06<br />
western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko 0.64 0.19<br />
greater earless lizard 0.09 0.05<br />
desert spiny lizard 1.85 0.80<br />
common side-blotched lizard 0.02 0.02<br />
ornate tree lizard 0.06 0.04<br />
regal horned lizard 0.15 0.05<br />
western whiptail 0.05 0.05<br />
Gila monster 0.15 0.08<br />
coachwhip 0.04 0.03<br />
western patch-nosed snake 0.01 0.01<br />
long-nosed snake 0.14 0.06<br />
night snake 0.10 0.04<br />
western diamond-backed rattlesnake 0.25 0.14<br />
black-tailed rattlesnake 0.01 0.01<br />
tiger rattlesnake 0.29 0.19<br />
all individuals 17.48 2.72<br />
with temperature (t 77 = 0.05, P = 0.95). Relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> snakes increased with temperature<br />
(estimate = 0.5/Cº, SE = 0.2, t 79 = 2.34, P =<br />
0.022) <strong>and</strong> did not vary with relative humidity<br />
or cloud cover (t 79 ≤ 0.77, P ≥ 0.45). Further,<br />
species richness decreased with increasing<br />
cloud cover for lizards (t 77 = 4.92, P < 0.0001)<br />
<strong>and</strong> increased with increasing cloud cover for<br />
amphibians (t 77 = 2.10, P = 0.039) after adjusting<br />
for the influence <strong>of</strong> survey time <strong>and</strong> elevation.<br />
Most surveys were in the low-elevation<br />
stratum (58.8%) with fewer in the middle-<br />
(27.1%) <strong>and</strong> high- (14.1%) elevation strata.<br />
Relative abundance during daytime surveys<br />
varied among strata (F 2, 51 = 12.9, P < 0.0001,<br />
ANOVA) <strong>and</strong> was 2-times lower in the middle-<br />
<strong>and</strong> 4.2-times lower in high-elevation strata than<br />
in the low-elevation stratum (79.9 ± 8.3; Table<br />
4.7). Species richness for daytime surveys also<br />
varied with elevation (F 2, 51 = 18.3, P < 0.0001,<br />
ANOVA) <strong>and</strong> was 1.7 times lower in the middle-<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2.5 times lower in the high-elevation strata<br />
than in the low-elevation stratum (7.3 ± 0.5).<br />
Patterns <strong>of</strong> species occurrence <strong>and</strong><br />
relative abundance <strong>of</strong>ten varied across elevation.<br />
We detected 17 species in only the low-elevation<br />
stratum whereas we detected a single species,<br />
the greater short-horned lizard, in only the<br />
38<br />
high-elevation stratum (Table 4.8). Relative<br />
abundance increased with elevation for eight<br />
species (Sonoran spotted <strong>and</strong> western whiptail,<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard, zebra-tailed lizard, ornate<br />
tree lizard, greater earless lizard, common sideblotched<br />
lizard, <strong>and</strong> western diamond-backed<br />
rattlesnake) <strong>and</strong> decreased with elevation for two<br />
species (Madrean alligator lizard <strong>and</strong> eastern<br />
fence lizard) (P ≤ 0.061, test <strong>of</strong> slope from<br />
regression) after adjusting for other important<br />
factors such as time <strong>of</strong> day <strong>and</strong> temperature.<br />
Canyon treefrogs were most common in the<br />
middle-elevation stratum (t 82 = 2.15, P = 0.034,<br />
test <strong>of</strong> quadratic term from regression).<br />
Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> many species was<br />
too low or distribution too restricted to facilitate<br />
quantitative comparisons <strong>of</strong> species occurrence<br />
<strong>and</strong> relative abundance. Only a single Great<br />
Plains skink (along lower Chimenea Canyon) <strong>and</strong><br />
lesser earless lizard (along lower Rincon Creek)<br />
were detected. Only one western patch-nosed<br />
snake (in a rocky canyon dominated by Sonoran<br />
desertscrub) <strong>and</strong> one mountain patch-nosed<br />
snake (in open pine-oak woodl<strong>and</strong> at ≈1,770 m)<br />
were detected. Similarly only one Sonoran coral<br />
snake (in Sonoran desertscrub) <strong>and</strong> one common<br />
kingsnake (lower Rincon Creek) were detected.<br />
All 100 lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frogs that we observed
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0 20 40 60 80 100 120<br />
Sample period<br />
39<br />
All survey methods<br />
Extensive <strong>and</strong> intensive surveys<br />
Figure 4.3. Species accumulation curve for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Each sampling period represents batches <strong>of</strong> 35 individuals, the<br />
mean number <strong>of</strong> individuals observed in an eight-hour field day. “All survey methods” includes extensive,<br />
intensive, road surveys, <strong>and</strong> incidental observations. The order <strong>of</strong> all sampling periods was r<strong>and</strong>omized.<br />
were detected in Turkey, Rincon, Chimenea, <strong>and</strong><br />
Wildhorse creeks.<br />
We detected 24 species during extensive<br />
surveys that were near r<strong>and</strong>omly-selected<br />
transects (n = 22) <strong>and</strong> 38 species in non-r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
areas (n = 63) with only one new species<br />
detected in r<strong>and</strong>om areas. Species richness in<br />
non-r<strong>and</strong>om areas (5.1 ± 0.4) was similar to that<br />
in r<strong>and</strong>om areas (5.3 ± 0.6; t 83 = 0.42, P = 0.81,<br />
t-test), yet there was some evidence that richness<br />
<strong>of</strong> amphibians was greater in non-r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
areas (t 83 = 1.80, P = 0.075, t-test). Relative<br />
abundance in non-r<strong>and</strong>om survey areas (41.9 ±<br />
5.1 individuals/10 hrs) was also similar to that<br />
in r<strong>and</strong>om areas (52.3 ± 8.6; t 83 = 1.04, P = 0.30,<br />
t-test), yet there was some evidence that relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> lizards was greater in r<strong>and</strong>om areas<br />
(t 83 = 1.89, P = 0.065, t-test).<br />
Road Surveys<br />
We detected 688 individuals <strong>of</strong> 19 species during<br />
55 surveys totaling 46.3 hours <strong>of</strong> effort (Table<br />
4.9). We detected four amphibian species (21%<br />
<strong>of</strong> all species) totaling 515 individuals, 74.9%<br />
<strong>of</strong> all individuals detected <strong>and</strong> proportionally<br />
more amphibians than for other survey methods<br />
(Table 4.7). Reptiles included eight lizard <strong>and</strong><br />
seven snake species; 20.8% (n = 143 <strong>of</strong> 688)<br />
<strong>of</strong> individuals were lizards <strong>and</strong> 4.4% (n = 30 <strong>of</strong><br />
688) were snakes. Relative abundance averaged<br />
17.5 ± 2.7 individuals/hr (range = 0– 85.3), the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> which were the Sonoran Desert <strong>and</strong><br />
red-spotted toads.<br />
Relative abundance averaged 37.1%<br />
higher in summer than in spring (t 53 = 1.92, P =<br />
0.060, t-test) but was not necessarily attributable<br />
to an increase in amphibians during summer<br />
(t 53 = 0.79, P = 0.43, t-test). The desert spiny<br />
lizard was the most common lizard detected (89<br />
detections) <strong>and</strong> the western diamond-backed<br />
(eight detections) <strong>and</strong> tiger (six detections)<br />
rattlesnakes were the most common snake species<br />
detected.<br />
Incidental Observations<br />
We recorded 1,226 incidental detections <strong>of</strong> 44<br />
species between 3 April to 5 October 2001 <strong>and</strong><br />
2 May to 7 November 2002 (Appendix B).
All species that we detected incidentally were<br />
recorded using other methods except for the<br />
Mexican spadefoot, canyon spotted whiptail,<br />
ring-necked snake, western ground snake, <strong>and</strong><br />
Mojave rattlesnake.<br />
Vouchers<br />
We collected 10 specimen vouchers in 2001 <strong>and</strong><br />
2002 (Appendix E) <strong>and</strong> obtained voucher records<br />
<strong>of</strong> 34 species collected by others (Appendix<br />
F). We obtained 65 photographic vouchers <strong>of</strong><br />
44 species during 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002 (Appendix E).<br />
Photographic vouchers include five amphibian<br />
<strong>and</strong> 39 reptile species from three orders <strong>and</strong> 17<br />
families.<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness<br />
We documented 7 species <strong>of</strong> amphibians <strong>and</strong><br />
39 species <strong>of</strong> reptiles during this inventory<br />
(Appendix B). Based on the combined results<br />
<strong>of</strong> our inventory <strong>and</strong> other recent research <strong>and</strong><br />
monitoring efforts for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna in the district,<br />
we believe that 9 species <strong>of</strong> amphibians <strong>and</strong><br />
48 species <strong>of</strong> reptiles likely occur (Appendix<br />
B). Therefore, our inventory effort found 81%<br />
<strong>of</strong> the species present. Species accumulation<br />
curves (Fig. 4.3) nearly reached an asymptote for<br />
extensive <strong>and</strong> intensive surveys, suggesting that<br />
additional surveys would have produced few new<br />
species. In fact, many species that we found only<br />
incidentally or have been documented few times<br />
are so rare that encountering them is largely a<br />
function <strong>of</strong> chance.<br />
Species that we did not observe but that<br />
we believe are present include seven species<br />
confirmed by previous specimen vouchers<br />
<strong>and</strong>/or confirmed by park staff during the past<br />
decade <strong>and</strong> two other species believed to be<br />
present based on nearby specimen vouchers <strong>and</strong><br />
unconfirmed observations. Species confirmed<br />
by park staff during the time <strong>of</strong> this study are the<br />
tiger salam<strong>and</strong>er, American bullfrog, ornate box<br />
turtle, <strong>and</strong> Mediterranean house gecko. Of these,<br />
the non-native American bullfrog is certainly<br />
incidental; this species has been observed at<br />
the district in the past decade only during wet<br />
summers, <strong>and</strong> then only as dispersing juveniles<br />
that do not persist (<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP, unpubl. records).<br />
40<br />
A population established in Wildhorse Canyon<br />
in the 1970s (Kevin Black, pers. comm.) has<br />
not been present for at least 15 years, possibly<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the park’s effort to eliminate it. Tiger<br />
salam<strong>and</strong>ers are established in stock tanks in<br />
Reddington Pass (north <strong>of</strong> the district) <strong>and</strong><br />
Danielle Foster observed one burrowed at the<br />
base <strong>of</strong> an exotic grass that she was pulling out<br />
near Rincon Creek in 2001. It is possible that<br />
this species breeds in the district, but is difficult<br />
to find because it spends little time above ground.<br />
The ornate box turtle is likely established in the<br />
district <strong>and</strong> staff found two individuals in 2005,<br />
though some individuals may be periodically<br />
released pets (P. Rosen, pers. comm.). The nonnative<br />
Mediterranean house gecko occurs in<br />
buildings in the Administration area only <strong>and</strong><br />
there is no evidence that it is established in other<br />
areas.<br />
Based on nearby voucher specimens <strong>and</strong><br />
unconfirmed observations, we believe that three<br />
other species <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians occur<br />
in the district: long-nosed leopard lizard, glossy<br />
snake, <strong>and</strong> saddled leaf-nosed snake. A glossy<br />
snake was collected near the district entrance<br />
in 1967 <strong>and</strong> this species may occur along the<br />
district’s western boundaries. The long-nosed<br />
leopard lizard has been observed by park staff<br />
several times in areas such as the Javelina Picnic<br />
Area (Robert Ellis, pers. comm., Black 1982). It<br />
occurs on the Rocking K ranch adjacent to the<br />
district (Murray 1996) <strong>and</strong> probably occurs in<br />
the district as well. The checkered garter snake<br />
(Thamnophis marcianus), a riparian species,<br />
was reported for the district by Lowe <strong>and</strong> Holm<br />
(1991), but we could not find any current or<br />
historic records for this species.<br />
Discussion<br />
Biogeography<br />
The Rincon Mountains contain elements <strong>of</strong><br />
several major biogeographic provinces, including<br />
the Sonoran Desert to the south <strong>and</strong> west, the<br />
Rocky Mountains to the north <strong>and</strong> east, <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Chihuahuan Desert <strong>and</strong> Madrean “sky isl<strong>and</strong>s”<br />
to the south <strong>and</strong> east (Shreve 1951, Brown 1994,<br />
Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin 1987). The large
elevation range <strong>of</strong> the district allows it to contain<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians associated<br />
with these very different ecological provinces.<br />
As a result, many representatives <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the<br />
four major regions are present, including a large<br />
number <strong>of</strong> species not present in the Tucson<br />
Mountain District <strong>of</strong> the park. An interesting<br />
note is that a few low-desert Sonoran Desert<br />
species found in the Tucson Mountain District,<br />
such as the sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes) <strong>and</strong><br />
desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) reach<br />
the eastern edge <strong>of</strong> their ranges in the Tucson<br />
Mountains. Thus, the Rincon Mountain District’s<br />
herpet<strong>of</strong>auna contains classic Sonoran Desert<br />
species (e.g., desert tortoise), Rocky Mountain<br />
species (e.g., ring-necked snake), Chihuahuan<br />
Desert species (e.g., greater earless lizard), <strong>and</strong><br />
Madrean species (e.g., Madrean alligator lizard).<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> these species are on the edge <strong>of</strong> their<br />
range in the district. A few taxa, including the<br />
southern plateau subspecies <strong>of</strong> the eastern fence<br />
lizard, occur in the Rincon <strong>and</strong> nearby Santa<br />
Catalina Mountains as disjunct populations<br />
(Stebbins 2003).<br />
There are also a large number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
that occur close to the Rincon Mountains but<br />
that have not been observed in the district. Our<br />
inventory confirms regional distribution patterns<br />
<strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna first described by Lowe (1994)<br />
who noted that many Madrean species reach<br />
their northern limits along what he referred to as<br />
the “Madrean Line” that corresponds roughly to<br />
Interstate-10, which runs just to the south <strong>of</strong> the<br />
district (See Fig. 2.1). Lowe (1994) focused on<br />
several Madrean rattlesnakes that are found in<br />
the Santa Rita Mountains but not in the Rincon<br />
or Santa Catalina mountains, including the twinspotted<br />
rattlesnake (Crotalus pricei), b<strong>and</strong>ed<br />
rock rattlesnake (C. lepidus), <strong>and</strong> Arizona ridgenosed<br />
rattlesnake (C. willardi). By contrast, the<br />
western rattlesnake, a “Rocky Mountain” species,<br />
is found in the Rincon Mountains but not in the<br />
Santa Rita Mountains. Lowe’s observation has<br />
been confirmed by biogeographical analyses <strong>of</strong><br />
recent inventories (Swann et al. 2005), including<br />
ours. Rumors have long persisted that some <strong>of</strong><br />
these Madrean species (especially b<strong>and</strong>ed rock<br />
rattlesnakes) occur in the Rincon Mountains, but<br />
this inventory provides further evidence that they<br />
do not.<br />
41<br />
Other species found near Tucson that<br />
do not occur in the district include many mesic<br />
riparian species, including the Mexican garter<br />
snake (Thamnophis eques) <strong>and</strong> Woodhouse toad<br />
(Bufo woodhousii). The Texas horned lizard<br />
(Phyrnosoma cornutum), a Chihuahuan Desert<br />
species, has been found in Mescal (20 km SE<br />
<strong>of</strong> the district; Roger Repp, pers. comm.) but is<br />
unlikely to occur in the district.<br />
Abundance <strong>and</strong> Distribution<br />
The Rincon Mountain District has a well-studied<br />
herpet<strong>of</strong>auna compared to other areas, due<br />
mainly to its proximity to Tucson. In particular,<br />
recent field studies <strong>of</strong> individual species have<br />
facilitated incidental observations <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong><br />
amphibians that are not <strong>of</strong>ten seen. In addition,<br />
the size <strong>of</strong> the staff at <strong>Saguaro</strong> in comparison with<br />
smaller NPS units in the Sonoran Desert Network<br />
has resulted in better documentation <strong>of</strong> sightings,<br />
including collection <strong>of</strong> roadkill. On the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, the district is large, mostly roadless, <strong>and</strong><br />
topographically complex, which makes studies<br />
there difficult.<br />
Our study is the first to quantify relative<br />
abundance <strong>and</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> amphibians <strong>and</strong><br />
reptiles in the district <strong>and</strong> to evaluate patterns <strong>of</strong><br />
these parameters in space <strong>and</strong> time. Many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
patterns that we documented confirm patterns<br />
observed in previous studies. However, the<br />
greater rate <strong>of</strong> detections per hour on extensive<br />
(4.1 detections/hr) vs. intensive (3.6 detections/<br />
hr) surveys was dramatically different than in<br />
the Tucson Mountain District, where extensive<br />
surveys (4.5 detections/hr) produced far fewer<br />
detections than intensive surveys (6.3 detections/<br />
hr) (Flesch et al. 2006). Tables 4.5 <strong>and</strong> 4.8<br />
suggest that this may be due to the effect <strong>of</strong><br />
greater numbers <strong>of</strong> intensive surveys at higher<br />
elevations, where detection rates were lower than<br />
on low-elevation plots.<br />
In general, both abundance <strong>and</strong><br />
distribution <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians decreased<br />
with increasing elevation in the district. This<br />
pattern is well-known <strong>and</strong> certainly corresponds<br />
to declining species richness <strong>of</strong> reptiles (but<br />
not amphibians) across an increasing latitudinal
gradient (Stein 2002), <strong>and</strong> is undoubtedly related<br />
to the physiology <strong>of</strong> these taxa.<br />
The far greater number <strong>of</strong> diurnal lizards<br />
detected on both intensive <strong>and</strong> extensive surveys<br />
compared to snakes <strong>and</strong> amphibians reflects the<br />
diurnal abundance <strong>of</strong> lizards. Snakes can be<br />
both diurnal <strong>and</strong> nocturnal, but are nearly always<br />
observed less frequently than lizards during<br />
species inventories in the southwestern United<br />
States (e.g., Turner et al. 2003, Swann et al.<br />
2000, Swann <strong>and</strong> Schwalbe 2001, Powell et al.<br />
2005). Excluding diurnal frogs in riparian areas,<br />
most amphibians we observed were toads, which<br />
are active almost exclusively at night during the<br />
summer rainy season – clearly evidenced by the<br />
large increase in the number <strong>of</strong> toads we detected<br />
with rising humidity. In contrast, lizard activity<br />
declines with increasing humidity <strong>and</strong> cloud<br />
cover, which is consistent with our observations.<br />
Study Design<br />
Our major goals for this inventory were to apply<br />
a repeatable study design that (in some cases)<br />
allowed inference to the whole district <strong>and</strong> also<br />
to detect the maximum number <strong>of</strong> species per<br />
unit time <strong>of</strong> field effort. In general we achieved<br />
these goals, but clearly some methods were more<br />
effective than others.<br />
Intensive surveys were not highly<br />
successful at the district, in part because <strong>of</strong> its<br />
large size <strong>and</strong> environmental heterogeneity.<br />
Intensive surveys had relatively low observation<br />
rates <strong>and</strong> poor species detections. For<br />
consistency with other inventories, we stratified<br />
our study plots based only on elevation, but<br />
species richness, abundance, <strong>and</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians are clearly based on key<br />
habitat features such as slope, aspect, geology,<br />
<strong>and</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> water. In recognition <strong>of</strong> this,<br />
we revised our strategy in 2002, increased the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> extensive surveys at lower elevations,<br />
<strong>and</strong> were more successful in detecting rare<br />
species. If intensive surveys are included in<br />
future species richness monitoring at the district,<br />
we would recommend a stratification approach<br />
that includes wet riparian areas.<br />
Extensive surveys detected many species<br />
(n = 39), in part because more time was spent<br />
42<br />
using this method <strong>and</strong> areas were surveyed<br />
in both day <strong>and</strong> night. However, this method<br />
did not detect as many species as incidental<br />
observations (n = 43). As in many previous<br />
herpetological inventories (see Swann 1999a),<br />
these results indicate how difficult it is to detect<br />
many reptile <strong>and</strong> amphibian species, which tend<br />
to be rare, extremely cryptic, subterranean in<br />
their habits, or a combination <strong>of</strong> these factors.<br />
Our study confirms that, at least until better<br />
technology is available for detecting rare species,<br />
a combination <strong>of</strong> methods, including incidental<br />
sightings <strong>and</strong> collection <strong>of</strong> roadkilled animals, is<br />
essential to achieve a complete list <strong>of</strong> species.<br />
Management Issues<br />
We did not observe any federally threatened<br />
or endangered species. The Sonoran Desert<br />
population <strong>of</strong> the desert tortoise is a species<br />
<strong>of</strong> conservation concern (Appendix B) <strong>and</strong><br />
has been petitioned for federal listing. This<br />
species is abundant in <strong>and</strong> around the district<br />
(Swann et al. 2002), <strong>and</strong> the park has both a past<br />
inventory (Wirt <strong>and</strong> Robichaux 2000) <strong>and</strong> current<br />
monitoring plans for this species. Exotic diseases<br />
in tortoises, particularly upper respiratory tract<br />
disease (Jones et al. 2005), is a concern <strong>and</strong><br />
monitoring the health <strong>of</strong> this species should<br />
occur periodically. The canyon spotted whiptail<br />
is another species <strong>of</strong> conservation concern<br />
(Appendix B). The only known population in the<br />
district occurs at Madrona ranger station (Bonine<br />
<strong>and</strong> Schwalbe 2003).<br />
The lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog is probably the<br />
most threatened species <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna in the<br />
district, as the park has long recognized (Swann<br />
1997). Lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frogs seem to have<br />
declined in southern Arizona <strong>and</strong> are extirpated in<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> their former range although populations<br />
in central Arizona seemed to be stable when<br />
last reported (Clarkson <strong>and</strong> Rorabaugh 1989,<br />
Sredl et al. 1997). In addition to habitat loss, a<br />
major threat to this species is the fungal disease<br />
chytridiomycosis, an introduced, potentially<br />
p<strong>and</strong>emic disease that occurs in the district (D.<br />
Swann, unpubl. data). The district has several<br />
small populations <strong>of</strong> lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frogs, yet<br />
at least one major population was extirpated
in recent years due to sedimentation <strong>of</strong> pools<br />
following major wildl<strong>and</strong> fires (Swann et al.<br />
2003). Most other populations seem to be stable,<br />
yet their small size <strong>and</strong> isolation may be factors<br />
that, when combined with stochastic events, may<br />
threaten their long-term persistence.<br />
We suspect that the district has a<br />
relatively stable herpet<strong>of</strong>auna community. There<br />
is little evidence that non-native species (reptiles,<br />
amphibians, mammals, or birds) are having an<br />
impact on reptile <strong>and</strong> amphibian populations.<br />
For example, if Mediterranean geckos were<br />
capable <strong>of</strong> establishing themselves in the district,<br />
they probably would have already done so.<br />
The greatest threat to herpet<strong>of</strong>auna from exotic<br />
species is probably from crayfish <strong>and</strong> American<br />
bullfrogs. Crayfish could have a dramatic<br />
negative impact on populations <strong>of</strong> lowl<strong>and</strong><br />
leopard frogs, canyon treefrogs, Sonoran mud<br />
turtles, <strong>and</strong> black-necked garter snakes if they<br />
were illegally introduced into the Rincon Creek<br />
watershed. Park personnel should be vigilant to<br />
prevent establishment.<br />
Reptile poaching may occur in the<br />
park, but is probably confined to areas along the<br />
western edge <strong>of</strong> the district. We suspect that<br />
individual Sonoran desert toads (Bufo alvarius),<br />
43<br />
a species that is traded <strong>and</strong> used because it<br />
possesses hallucinogenic qualities, are sometimes<br />
collected in the district. Roadkill has been welldocumented<br />
at the park; park staff estimate that<br />
literally thous<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians<br />
are killed by cars each year (Kline <strong>and</strong> Swann<br />
1998). Species most impacted by roadkill tend to<br />
be long-lived species such as the desert tortoise<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sonoran Desert toad. However, the problem<br />
is likely more severe in the Tucson Mountain<br />
District, which is more bisected by roads.<br />
Finally, habitat loss <strong>and</strong> fragmentation<br />
outside the district are major threats to all wildlife<br />
at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, although likely a<br />
greater threat for mammals than for herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />
(see Chapter 6). The major species impacted<br />
by habitat loss are desert species with limited<br />
habitat in the park. These include the lowl<strong>and</strong><br />
leopard frog, Mexican spadefoot toad (Spea<br />
multiplicada), Great Plains toad, canyon whiptail,<br />
long-nosed leopard lizard, glossy snake, <strong>and</strong> Pima<br />
(saddled) leaf-nosed snake. If any herpetological<br />
species is extirpated from the district in the next<br />
few decades, we predict it will be a species with<br />
more specialized habitat requirements, such as<br />
the canyon spotted whiptail or lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard<br />
frog.
Chapter 5: Bird <strong>Inventory</strong><br />
Brian F. Powell<br />
Previous Research<br />
There has been considerable bird research at the<br />
Rincon Mountain District, but no comprehensive<br />
<strong>and</strong> well-documented inventory has been<br />
completed. Monson <strong>and</strong> Smith (1985) compiled<br />
a checklist for both districts <strong>of</strong> the park, but there<br />
is no documentation <strong>of</strong> the data used to create<br />
that list. The list includes abundance categories<br />
for each major vegetation community <strong>and</strong> this<br />
information was likely based on Gale Monson’s<br />
extensive knowledge <strong>of</strong> the distribution <strong>and</strong><br />
relative abundance <strong>of</strong> birds in similar vegetation<br />
communities in the region.<br />
A few studies have investigated<br />
songbird community composition in the Sonoran<br />
desertscrub on the west side <strong>of</strong> the district near<br />
the Cactus Forest Loop Drive (Johnson <strong>and</strong><br />
Haight 1991, see also Mannan <strong>and</strong> Bibles 1989)<br />
<strong>and</strong> in the Rincon Valley (Boal <strong>and</strong> Mannan 1996,<br />
Freiderici 1998, Powell 1999, 2004). Only two<br />
multi-species, non-raptor studies have taken place<br />
in the higher elevations <strong>of</strong> the district (Marshall<br />
1956, Short 2002) <strong>and</strong> no research has taken<br />
place in the mid-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district or<br />
on the east slope <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains. In the<br />
1980s the park was concerned about the impact <strong>of</strong><br />
non-native cavity-nesting birds on native species<br />
<strong>and</strong> they commissioned studies to investigate<br />
this (Mannan <strong>and</strong> Bibles 1989, Kerpez <strong>and</strong> Smith<br />
1990). Because <strong>of</strong> the active fire management<br />
program, park personnel have been interested<br />
in the effects <strong>of</strong> fire on the Mexican spotted owl<br />
(Willey 1998) <strong>and</strong> songbirds (Short 2002) in the<br />
high elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district. The park<br />
contracted for periodic raptor surveys (Felley <strong>and</strong><br />
Corman 1993, Berner <strong>and</strong> Mannan 1992, Bailey<br />
1994, Griscom 2000). Park personnel surveyed<br />
three Breeding Bird Atlas blocks within the<br />
district (Short 1996) <strong>and</strong> those results are reported<br />
in Corman <strong>and</strong> Wise Gervais (2005). The Tucson<br />
Bird Count includes three low-elevation sites in<br />
the park, including Rincon Creek (TBC 2005).<br />
Single species studies have included the elf owl<br />
(Goad <strong>and</strong> Mannan 1987, Steidl 2003), Mexican<br />
spotted owl (Willey 1997, 1998b, Anderson<br />
45<br />
<strong>and</strong> Schon 1999, Steidl <strong>and</strong> Knipps 1999), buffbreasted<br />
flycatcher (Conway <strong>and</strong> Kirkpatrick<br />
2001; they also noted other species; Kirkpatrick<br />
et al. 2006), <strong>and</strong> purple martin (Stutchbury 1991).<br />
Park personnel survey periodically for the cactus<br />
ferruginous pygmy-owl <strong>and</strong> Mexican spotted<br />
owl <strong>and</strong> park staff file annual reports to the U.S.<br />
Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service (<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP, unpubl.<br />
reports) on monitoring <strong>and</strong> relevant management<br />
activities related to these species.<br />
Methods<br />
We surveyed for birds at the Rincon Mountain<br />
District from 2001 to 2003, though most <strong>of</strong> our<br />
surveys took place in the springs <strong>of</strong> 2001 <strong>and</strong><br />
2002. We used four field methods: (1) variable<br />
circular-plot (VCP) counts for diurnal breeding<br />
<strong>and</strong> spring migrant birds, (2) nocturnal surveys<br />
for owls <strong>and</strong> nightjars (breeding season), (3) line<br />
transects for diurnal birds in the non-breeding<br />
season, <strong>and</strong> (4) incidental observations for all<br />
birds in all seasons. Although line-transect<br />
surveys were not included in the original study<br />
proposal (Davis <strong>and</strong> Halvorson 2000), we felt<br />
they were important in our effort to inventory<br />
birds at the district because many species that<br />
use the area during the fall <strong>and</strong> winter may not<br />
be present during breeding-season surveys.<br />
Nevertheless, we concentrated our primary<br />
survey effort on the breeding season because bird<br />
distribution is relatively uniform in that season<br />
due to territoriality (Bibby et al. 2002). Our<br />
survey period included peak spring migration<br />
times for most species, which added many<br />
migratory birds to our list.<br />
We sampled vegetation around most<br />
VCP stations. Vegetation structure <strong>and</strong> plant<br />
species composition are important predictors <strong>of</strong><br />
bird species richness or the presence <strong>of</strong> particular<br />
species (MacArthur <strong>and</strong> MacArthur 1961, Rice et<br />
al. 1984, Strong <strong>and</strong> Bock 1990). In this report<br />
we use these data to categorize <strong>and</strong> describe bird<br />
communities. These data will also be useful for<br />
habitat association studies (e.g., Strong <strong>and</strong> Bock<br />
1990; see Appendix H for results).
Spatial Sampling Designs<br />
We established study sites based on r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
<strong>and</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om criteria. We surveyed at 17<br />
r<strong>and</strong>omly located focal-point transects (Fig. 5.1;<br />
see Chapter 1 for additional information). We<br />
established the locations <strong>of</strong> all other surveys in<br />
areas that we believed would have the highest<br />
species richness or as a matter <strong>of</strong> convenience<br />
(Figs. 5.1, 5.2). For all survey methods, we<br />
collected data at individual stations or sections,<br />
which we grouped into transects because <strong>of</strong><br />
convenience <strong>and</strong> efficiency. (An alternative<br />
approach would have been to establish<br />
individual stations or sections to maintain greater<br />
independence, but travel time between stations<br />
would have reduced the number <strong>of</strong> stations that<br />
we were able to visit in a morning.) We placed<br />
our non-r<strong>and</strong>om transects along riparian areas <strong>and</strong><br />
canyons in low-elevation areas (< 4000 ft); in all<br />
other areas we established non-r<strong>and</strong>om transects<br />
along trails because <strong>of</strong> accessibility <strong>and</strong> safety.<br />
VCP Surveys<br />
We used the variable circular-plot method (VCP;<br />
Reynolds et al. 1980, Buckl<strong>and</strong> et al. 2001)<br />
to survey for diurnally active birds during the<br />
breeding <strong>and</strong> spring migration seasons (mid April<br />
through early July). Conceptually, these surveys<br />
are similar to traditional “point counts” (Ralph<br />
et. al 1995) during which an observer spends a<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ardized length <strong>of</strong> time at one location (i.e.,<br />
46<br />
station) <strong>and</strong> records all birds seen or heard <strong>and</strong><br />
the distance to each bird or group <strong>of</strong> birds.<br />
We used three types <strong>of</strong> VCP surveys<br />
(Table 5.1). Methods differed primarily by<br />
the sampling design used to establish their<br />
location <strong>and</strong> by the number <strong>of</strong> visits (see Table<br />
5.1 for additional information). The following<br />
description <strong>of</strong> our survey protocol applies to all<br />
VCP methods unless otherwise noted. We located<br />
stations a minimum <strong>of</strong> 250 m apart to maintain<br />
independence among observations. On each<br />
successive visit to a transect we alternated the<br />
order in which we surveyed stations to minimize<br />
bias by time <strong>of</strong> day or direction <strong>of</strong> travel. We did<br />
not survey when wind exceeded 15 km/h or when<br />
precipitation exceeded an intermittent drizzle.<br />
We attempted to begin surveys approximately 30<br />
minutes before sunrise <strong>and</strong> conclude surveys no<br />
later than three hours after sunrise.<br />
We recorded a number <strong>of</strong> environmental<br />
variables at the beginning <strong>of</strong> each transect: wind<br />
speed (Beaufort scale), presence <strong>and</strong> severity <strong>of</strong><br />
rain (qualitative assessment), air temperature (ºF),<br />
relative humidity (%), <strong>and</strong> cloud cover (%). After<br />
arriving at a station, we waited one minute before<br />
beginning the count to allow birds to resume<br />
their normal activities. We identified to species<br />
all birds seen or heard during an eight-minute<br />
“active” period (5 minutes at reconnaissance<br />
VCP stations). For each detection we recorded<br />
the distance (in meters) the bird was from the<br />
observer (measured with laser range finder<br />
when possible), time <strong>of</strong> detection (measured in<br />
Table 5.1. Characteristics <strong>of</strong> the three major VCP survey types for birds, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
VCP survey type<br />
Repeat-visit<br />
Characteristic R<strong>and</strong>om (focal-point transects) Non-r<strong>and</strong>om Reconnaissance<br />
R<strong>and</strong>omly located Yes No No<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> visits per year 4 >2 1<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> stations 4 variable variable<br />
Count duration at each station 8 minutes 8 minutes 5 minutes<br />
Advantages Scope <strong>of</strong> inference to larger area, Flexible, most complete abundance Maximum flexibility, allows for<br />
vegetation data available data for areas with high species rapid inventories <strong>and</strong> larger spatial<br />
richness, uncommon <strong>and</strong> rare species coverage, provides good distribution<br />
are <strong>of</strong>ten accounted for<br />
data<br />
Disadvantages Inefficient for developing No spatial inference beyond transect Species lists are less complete,<br />
complete species list, transects<br />
because uncommon <strong>and</strong> rare<br />
are <strong>of</strong>ten in areas <strong>of</strong> low species<br />
richness<br />
species may be missed
Figure 5.1. Locations <strong>of</strong> VCP survey stations (r<strong>and</strong>om [focal-point transects], non-r<strong>and</strong>om,<br />
<strong>and</strong> reconnaissance), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
47
Figure 5.2. Location <strong>of</strong> section breaks for non-breeding season (winter) bird transects <strong>and</strong> nocturnal<br />
survey stations, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
one-minute intervals beginning at the start <strong>of</strong><br />
the active period), <strong>and</strong> the sex <strong>and</strong>/or age class<br />
(adult or juvenile), if known. We did not measure<br />
distances to birds that were flying overhead<br />
nor did we use techniques to attract birds (e.g.,<br />
“pishing”). We made an effort to avoid doublecounting<br />
individuals. If we observed a species<br />
during the “passive” count period (between<br />
the eight-minute counts), which had not been<br />
recorded previously at a station on that visit, we<br />
recorded its distance to the nearest station.<br />
Effort<br />
In 2001, we spent more effort surveying at<br />
focal-point stations (n = 272) than at non-<br />
48<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om stations (n = 160; Table 5.2). In 2002<br />
we surveyed exclusively at non-r<strong>and</strong>om stations,<br />
both repeat-visit (n = 130) <strong>and</strong> reconnaissance (n<br />
= 107). In both years the number <strong>of</strong> stations <strong>and</strong><br />
visits varied among transects except for r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
transects, which had four stations that we visited<br />
four times in 2001 (Table 5.2).<br />
Analysis<br />
Relative Abundance. We calculated relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> each species along each transect as<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> detections at all stations <strong>and</strong> visits<br />
(including zero values) <strong>and</strong> divided by effort<br />
(total number <strong>of</strong> visits multiplied by total number<br />
<strong>of</strong> stations). We reduced our full collection <strong>of</strong>
Table 5.2. Summary <strong>of</strong> bird survey effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001–2003.<br />
Sample size (n) was used in calculating relative abundance for each transect <strong>and</strong> year.<br />
Years(s)<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om or<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> 2001 2002/2003<br />
Survey type Non-r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
Community type Transect name(s) stations Visits n Visits n<br />
Repeat-visit VCP R<strong>and</strong>omb Low Sonoran Desertscrub 112, 115, 130, 138, 139 20 4 80<br />
Middle Sonoran Desertscrub 121 4 4 16<br />
Oak Savannah 101, 106, 111, 189 16 4 64<br />
Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> 120, 125 8 4 32<br />
High Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> 107, 128, 155 12 4 48<br />
Conifer Forest 113, 191 8 4 32<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om Riparian Lower Rincon Creek 8 4 32 7 55<br />
Upper Rincon Creek 4 4 16 5 35<br />
Box Canyon 7 4 28 5 35<br />
Upper Loma Verde Wash 2-5 4 8 3 15<br />
Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> Happy Valley Saddle 6 4 24 2 12<br />
Conifer Forest Rincon Peak 4 4 16 2 8<br />
Reconnaissance<br />
VCP<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om Low Bridal Wreath Falls 7 1 7<br />
Broadway Trailhead 8 1 8<br />
Chimenea Creek 6 1 6<br />
Freeman Road 8 1 8<br />
Freeman Wash 4 1 4<br />
Loma Verde Wash 8 1 8<br />
Madrona Canyon 6 1 6<br />
Middle Douglas Spring 4-8 2 12<br />
Juniper Spring 5 1 5<br />
High Deer Head Spring 5 1 5<br />
Italian Spring 8 1 8<br />
Manning Cabin 8 1 8<br />
Mica Mountain 5 1 5<br />
Mica Mountain Trail 4 1 4<br />
North Slope Trail 8 1 8<br />
Upper Juniper Basin 5 1 5<br />
Line transect Non-r<strong>and</strong>om Douglas Spring 12 4 48<br />
Lower Rincon Creek 13 4 52<br />
Upper Loma Verde 8 4 36<br />
Nocturnal Non-r<strong>and</strong>om Low Box Canyon 2 1 2<br />
Loop Drive 6 4 24 1 6<br />
Rincon Creek 4-6 3 18 1 4<br />
Middle Cowhead Saddle 4 2 8<br />
Juniper Basin 3 1 3<br />
High Happy Valley 3 3 9<br />
Italian Spring 2 1 2<br />
Manning 4 3 12 1 4<br />
Spud Rock Spring 4 1 4<br />
a Low = 6,000 feet.<br />
b All transects had four stations <strong>and</strong> were surveyed four times.<br />
observations for each repeat-visit VCP station<br />
to a subset <strong>of</strong> data that was more appropriate for<br />
estimating relative abundance. We used only<br />
those detections that occurred ≤ 75 m from count<br />
stations because detectability is influenced by<br />
conspicuousness <strong>of</strong> birds (i.e., loud, large, or<br />
colorful species are more detectable than others)<br />
<strong>and</strong> environmental conditions (dense vegetation<br />
can reduce likelihood <strong>of</strong> some detections).<br />
49<br />
Truncating detections may reduce the influence<br />
<strong>of</strong> these factors (Verner <strong>and</strong> Ritter 1983; for a<br />
review <strong>of</strong> factors influencing detectability see<br />
Anderson 2001a, Pollock et al. 2002). We also<br />
excluded observations <strong>of</strong> birds that were flying<br />
over the station, birds observed outside <strong>of</strong> the<br />
eight-minute count period, <strong>and</strong> unknown species.<br />
Some observations met more than one <strong>of</strong> these<br />
criteria for exclusion from analysis. We report
the relative abundance by repeat-visit transect <strong>and</strong><br />
year. Because relative abundance is the closest<br />
index to true population size that we employ (see<br />
Chapter 1 for more detailed discussion), we use it<br />
to note the “abundance” <strong>of</strong> species.<br />
Relative Frequency <strong>of</strong> Detection. Relative<br />
abundance is the least biased index to abundance<br />
because we control a number <strong>of</strong> variables that<br />
account for differences among transects (e.g.,<br />
the ability to see or hear a bird). However,<br />
we also wanted an index that accounted for all<br />
<strong>of</strong> the species observed within a transect (i.e.,<br />
including birds seen > 75 m, flyovers, <strong>and</strong> birds<br />
seen outside <strong>of</strong> the 8-minute count period) <strong>and</strong><br />
which also conveyed some relative abundance<br />
information. Relative frequency <strong>of</strong> detections<br />
incorporates these observations <strong>and</strong> differs from<br />
relative abundance in that it is clearly biased<br />
toward those species that are highly visible or<br />
vocal. Therefore, it can be thought <strong>of</strong> as an index<br />
<strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> birds that we saw <strong>and</strong> heard at<br />
typical stations on the transect (i.e., most similar<br />
to an observer’s “experience”). This method also<br />
enables us to convey other important information<br />
regarding species’ presence at the transect level.<br />
Community Classification. Using data from<br />
repeat-visit VCP transects, we sought to identify<br />
bird communities within the district <strong>and</strong> to<br />
compare bird characteristics among communities.<br />
We did not use the original stratification <strong>of</strong><br />
r<strong>and</strong>om transects for this analysis because we<br />
were more interested in identifying communities<br />
than drawing inference to a larger area. To group<br />
transects, we used Ward’s hierarchical cluster<br />
analysis using bird <strong>and</strong> vegetation data. Cluster<br />
analysis is a multivariate technique that groups<br />
like entities (in our case transects) that share<br />
similar values. We performed separate cluster<br />
analyses for the bird <strong>and</strong> vegetation data (see<br />
Chapter 3 for results <strong>of</strong> cluster analysis using<br />
vegetation data). To identify groups from the<br />
bird data we used mean relative abundance for<br />
each transect <strong>and</strong> all visits in both years. We<br />
attempted to include reconnaissance VCP surveys<br />
into this analysis but the results were inconsistent,<br />
most likely because we had no vegetation data for<br />
these transects <strong>and</strong> there was likely insufficient<br />
sampling effort for birds.<br />
50<br />
Comparing Communities. We compared<br />
species richness <strong>and</strong> relative abundance among<br />
community types. To compare species richness<br />
we used a subset <strong>of</strong> data from all transects so<br />
that each transect consisted <strong>of</strong> four visits to<br />
four stations (n = 16); the minimum number<br />
<strong>of</strong> visits <strong>and</strong> stations to repeated-visit transects<br />
(see Table 5.2). We used only those detections<br />
< 75 m from stations (n = 2,476 observations)<br />
<strong>and</strong> excluded flyovers <strong>and</strong> birds seen outside<br />
<strong>of</strong> the eight-minute count period. To compare<br />
relative abundance among communities, we<br />
used observations from all visits <strong>and</strong> stations<br />
<strong>and</strong> did not choose a subset <strong>of</strong> observations (as<br />
for species richness) because relative abundance<br />
is scaled by survey effort. We tested for<br />
differences among all communities using oneway<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> variance (ANOVA) <strong>and</strong> searched<br />
for pairwise differences between communities<br />
using the Tukey-Kramer procedure. We logtransformed<br />
relative abundance data to better<br />
meet assumptions <strong>of</strong> normality.<br />
Line-transect Surveys<br />
Field Methods<br />
We used a modified line-transect method (Bibby<br />
et al. 2002) to survey for birds from November<br />
2002 to February 2003. Line transects differ<br />
from VCP transects in that an observer records<br />
birds seen or heard while the observer is walking<br />
an envisioned line rather than while st<strong>and</strong>ing at<br />
a series <strong>of</strong> stations. The line-transect method is<br />
more effective during the non-breeding season<br />
because bird vocalizations are less conspicuous<br />
<strong>and</strong> frequent <strong>and</strong> therefore birds tend to be more<br />
difficult to detect aurally (Bibby et al. 2002).<br />
We established three transects in the<br />
district (Fig. 5.2). Transects were broken into<br />
sections, each approximately 250 m in length. As<br />
with VCP transects, we alternated direction <strong>of</strong><br />
travel to reduce biases <strong>and</strong> did not survey during<br />
periods <strong>of</strong> excessive rain or wind (see VCP<br />
survey methods for details). We began surveys<br />
about 30 minutes after sunrise <strong>and</strong> continued until<br />
we completed the transect. As with VCP surveys,<br />
we recorded weather conditions at the beginning<br />
<strong>and</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each survey. We timed our travel so<br />
that we traversed each section in ten minutes,
during which time we assigned all birds seen<br />
<strong>and</strong>/or heard into one <strong>of</strong> the following distance<br />
categories: ≤ 100 m, > 100 m, or “flyover.”<br />
When possible, we noted the sex <strong>and</strong> age class <strong>of</strong><br />
birds. We recorded birds observed before or after<br />
surveys as “incidentals” (see section below) <strong>and</strong><br />
we did not use techniques to attract birds (e.g.,<br />
“pishing”).<br />
Effort<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> sections along each transect<br />
ranged from eight to 13 (Table 5.2). We surveyed<br />
each transect four times in the winter <strong>of</strong> 2002 <strong>and</strong><br />
2003.<br />
Analysis<br />
Due to the low number <strong>of</strong> observations<br />
within 100 m <strong>of</strong> the transect lines, we used<br />
all observations (except unknown species) to<br />
estimate relative abundance (see Methods section<br />
<strong>of</strong> VCP surveys for more details).<br />
Nocturnal Surveys<br />
Field Methods<br />
To survey for owls we broadcast commercially<br />
available vocalizations (Colver et al. 1999) using<br />
a compact disc player <strong>and</strong> broadcaster (Bibby et<br />
al. 2002) <strong>and</strong> recorded other nocturnal species<br />
(nighthawks <strong>and</strong> poorwills) when observed. We<br />
established nine transects (Fig. 5.2). The number<br />
<strong>of</strong> transects per elevation stratum was lowest<br />
for the middle elevation (n = 2) <strong>and</strong> highest for<br />
the high elevation areas (n = 4) (Table 5.2). The<br />
number <strong>of</strong> stations per transect varied depending<br />
on logistical constraints but all stations were a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 500 m apart. For transects that we<br />
visited multiple times, we attempted to reduce<br />
sampling biases by varying direction <strong>of</strong> travel<br />
along transects. We began surveys approximately<br />
45 minutes after sunset.<br />
We began surveys at each station with a<br />
three-minute “passive” listening period during<br />
which time we broadcast no calls. We then<br />
broadcast vocalizations for a series <strong>of</strong> two-minute<br />
“active” periods. We broadcast vocalizations<br />
<strong>of</strong> species that we suspected might be present,<br />
based on habitat <strong>and</strong> range information. The<br />
species that we broadcasted changed based on the<br />
elevation stratum <strong>of</strong> the surveys:<br />
51<br />
• Low elevation: elf, western screech,<br />
burrowing, <strong>and</strong> barn owls;<br />
• Middle elevation: elf, northern pygmy,<br />
flammulated, <strong>and</strong> whiskered screech<br />
owls;<br />
• High elevation: northern pygmy,<br />
flammulated, northern saw-whet, <strong>and</strong><br />
whiskered screech owls.<br />
We excluded the great horned owl from the<br />
broadcast sequence because <strong>of</strong> its aggressive<br />
behavior toward other owls (though we recorded<br />
them incidentally). Also, we did not survey for<br />
the Mexican spotted owl or the cactus ferruginous<br />
pygmy-owl because that would have required<br />
use <strong>of</strong> specific protocols <strong>and</strong> because park staff<br />
survey periodically for these species.<br />
We broadcast recordings <strong>of</strong> owls in<br />
sequence <strong>of</strong> species size, from smallest to largest,<br />
so that smaller species would not be inhibited by<br />
the “presence” <strong>of</strong> larger predators or competitors<br />
(Fuller <strong>and</strong> Mosher 1987). During active periods,<br />
we broadcast owl vocalizations for 30 seconds<br />
followed by a 30-second listening period. This<br />
pattern was repeated two times for each species.<br />
During the count period we used a flashlight to<br />
scan nearby vegetation <strong>and</strong> structures for visual<br />
detections. If we observed a bird during the<br />
three-minute passive period, we recorded the<br />
minute <strong>of</strong> the passive period in which the bird<br />
was first observed, the type <strong>of</strong> detection (aural,<br />
visual or both), <strong>and</strong> the distance to the bird. If a<br />
bird was observed during any <strong>of</strong> the two-minute<br />
active periods, we recorded in which interval(s)<br />
it was detected <strong>and</strong> the type <strong>of</strong> detection<br />
(aural, visual, or both). As with other survey<br />
methods, we attempted to avoid double-counting<br />
individuals recorded at previous stations. We<br />
also attempted to use a different observer for each<br />
visit, alternate direction <strong>of</strong> travel along transects,<br />
<strong>and</strong> not survey during inclement weather.<br />
Effort<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> stations <strong>and</strong> visits to each transect<br />
differed among transects (Table 5.2). Although<br />
we had the most transects in the high elevation<br />
stratum, we had most (56%) <strong>of</strong> our survey effort<br />
in the low elevation stratum because <strong>of</strong> greater<br />
ease <strong>of</strong> accessing stations.
Analysis<br />
We report relative abundance as the mean number<br />
<strong>of</strong> observations.<br />
Incidental <strong>and</strong> Breeding Observations<br />
Field Methods<br />
When we were not conducting formal surveys<br />
<strong>and</strong> we encountered a rare species, a species in<br />
an unusual location, or an individual engaged<br />
in breeding behavior, we recorded UTM<br />
coordinates, time <strong>of</strong> detection, <strong>and</strong> (if known)<br />
the sex <strong>and</strong> age class <strong>of</strong> the bird. We recorded<br />
all breeding observations using the st<strong>and</strong>ardized<br />
classification system developed by the North<br />
American Ornithological Atlas Committee<br />
(NAOAC 1990), which characterizes breeding<br />
behavior into one <strong>of</strong> nine categories: nest<br />
building, occupied nest, used nest, adult carrying<br />
nesting material, adult carrying food or fecal sac,<br />
adult feeding young, adult performing distraction<br />
display, or fledged young. We made breeding<br />
observations during st<strong>and</strong>ardized surveys <strong>and</strong><br />
incidental observations.<br />
Analysis<br />
We report frequency counts <strong>of</strong> incidental <strong>and</strong><br />
breeding observations.<br />
Vegetation Sampling at Non-r<strong>and</strong>om VCP Stations<br />
Field Methods<br />
We quantified vegetation characteristics along<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om transects (see Chapter 3 for details). In<br />
2002 we sampled vegetation associated with<br />
each <strong>of</strong> the repeat-visit, non-r<strong>and</strong>om transects.<br />
At each station we sampled vegetation at five<br />
subplots located at a modified r<strong>and</strong>om direction<br />
<strong>and</strong> distance. Each plot was located within a<br />
72° range <strong>of</strong> the compass from the station (e.g.,<br />
Plot 3 was located between 145° <strong>and</strong> 216°) to<br />
reduce clustering <strong>of</strong> plots. We r<strong>and</strong>omly placed<br />
plots within 75 m <strong>of</strong> the stations to correspond<br />
with truncation <strong>of</strong> data used in estimating relative<br />
abundance.<br />
At each plot we used the point-quarter<br />
method (Krebs 1998) to sample vegetation<br />
by dividing the plot into four quadrants along<br />
52<br />
cardinal directions. We applied this method to<br />
plants in one size category: potential cavitybearing<br />
vegetation (> 20 cm diameter at breast<br />
height), <strong>and</strong> three height categories: sub-shrubs<br />
(0.5–1.0 m), shrubs (> 1.0–2.0 m), trees (><br />
2.0 m). If there was no vegetation for a given<br />
category within 25 m <strong>of</strong> the plot center, we<br />
indicated this in the species column. For each<br />
individual plant, we recorded distance from the<br />
plot center, species, height, <strong>and</strong> maximum canopy<br />
diameter (including errant branches). Association<br />
<strong>of</strong> a plant to a quadrant was determined by the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> its trunk, regardless <strong>of</strong> which quadrant<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> the plant was in; no plant was<br />
recorded in more than one quadrant. St<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
dead vegetation was recorded only in the<br />
“potential cavity-bearing tree” category. On rare<br />
occasions when plots overlapped we repeated the<br />
selection process for the second plot.<br />
Within a 5-m radius around the center <strong>of</strong><br />
each plot, we visually estimated percent ground<br />
cover by type (bare ground, litter, or rock);<br />
<strong>and</strong> percent aerial cover <strong>of</strong> vegetation in each<br />
quadrant using three height categories: 0–0.5 m,<br />
> 0.5–2.0 m, <strong>and</strong> > 2.0 m. For both estimates we<br />
used one <strong>of</strong> six categories for percent cover: 0<br />
(0%), 10 (1–20%), 30 (21–40%), 50 (41–60%),<br />
70 (61–80%), <strong>and</strong> 90 (81–100%).<br />
Analysis<br />
Using point-quarter data, we calculated mean<br />
density (number <strong>of</strong> stems/ha) for all species<br />
in each <strong>of</strong> the four height/size categories. We<br />
used the computer program Krebs to calculate<br />
density (Krebs 1998). We collected these data<br />
to characterize gross vegetation characteristics<br />
around survey stations.<br />
Results<br />
We made over 15,000 observations <strong>of</strong> birds <strong>and</strong><br />
found 173 species from 2001 to 2003 (Appendix<br />
C). We found 10 species that had not previously<br />
been found in the district including the sulphurbellied<br />
flycatcher, elegant trogon, <strong>and</strong> pinyon<br />
jay. Among the 173 species that we observed,<br />
there were a number with special conservation<br />
designations including the northern goshawk,<br />
yellow-billed cuckoo, Mexican spotted owl,
<strong>and</strong> buff-breasted flycatcher. Unusual sightings<br />
included a nest <strong>of</strong> the sulphur-bellied flycatcher,<br />
a singing male buff-breasted flycatcher, <strong>and</strong><br />
sightings <strong>of</strong> the wild turkey, common black hawk,<br />
<strong>and</strong> yellow-breasted chat. We recorded three<br />
non-native species, including the rock pigeon,<br />
a new species for the district. We recorded the<br />
most species during incidental observations (n<br />
= 154) <strong>and</strong> VCP surveys (n = 149) <strong>and</strong> fewest<br />
during nocturnal surveys (n = 9).<br />
Community Types<br />
We performed cluster analysis on bird <strong>and</strong><br />
vegetation data <strong>and</strong> found almost complete<br />
congruency <strong>of</strong> results for the r<strong>and</strong>om transects<br />
(we did not include vegetation data from nonr<strong>and</strong>om<br />
transects into the cluster analysis for<br />
plants; see above). Interpreting data from both<br />
analyses, we found there to be five communities<br />
(Fig. 5.3). Based on the bird data, we grouped<br />
the Happy Valley Saddle transect differently than<br />
we expected; it was originally classified as Oak<br />
Savannah, but we assigned it to the Pine-oak<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong> vegetation community.<br />
Oak Savannah<br />
Pine/oak Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Conifer Forest<br />
Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
Riparian<br />
101<br />
106<br />
189<br />
111<br />
Happy Valley Saddle<br />
107<br />
125<br />
155<br />
120<br />
128<br />
113<br />
Rincon Peak<br />
191<br />
112<br />
115<br />
121<br />
130<br />
138<br />
139<br />
Box Canyon<br />
Upper Loma Verde Wash<br />
Lower Rincon Creek<br />
Upper Rincon Creek<br />
53<br />
• Riparian. All low-elevation non-r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
transects (Lower <strong>and</strong> Upper Rincon<br />
Creek, Box Canyon, <strong>and</strong> Loma Verde<br />
Wash). Creeks <strong>and</strong> washes lined by thick<br />
vegetation such as Fremont cottonwood,<br />
Arizona sycamore, <strong>and</strong> willow (except<br />
Loma Verde Wash), velvet ash, <strong>and</strong><br />
bordered by Sonoran Desertscrub.<br />
• Sonoran Desertscrub. Five lowelevation<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om transects (112, 115,<br />
130, 138, <strong>and</strong> 139) <strong>and</strong> one middle<br />
elevation transect (121). Mixed cactus,<br />
succulents, <strong>and</strong> palo verde, with some<br />
velvet mesquite, especially in the dry<br />
washes.<br />
• Oak Savannah. Four middle-elevation<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om transects (101, 106, 189, <strong>and</strong><br />
111). Open areas dominated by perennial<br />
grasses with scattered trees, mostly oaks.<br />
• Pine-Oak Woodl<strong>and</strong>. Two middle- (125<br />
<strong>and</strong> 120) <strong>and</strong> three high- (107, 155, <strong>and</strong><br />
128) elevation r<strong>and</strong>om transects <strong>and</strong><br />
one non-r<strong>and</strong>om transect (Happy Valley<br />
Saddle). Most transects had dense st<strong>and</strong>s<br />
<strong>of</strong> manzanita <strong>and</strong> oaks, interspersed<br />
Figure 5.3. Dendrogram <strong>of</strong> bird community groups from Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis, <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. See text for descriptions <strong>of</strong> bird communities<br />
<strong>and</strong> data used in analysis.
with some pine trees, mostly pinyon <strong>and</strong><br />
ponderosa pine (Happy Valley Saddle).<br />
• Conifer Forest. Two high-elevation<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om transects (113 <strong>and</strong> 191) <strong>and</strong> one<br />
non-r<strong>and</strong>om transect (Rincon Peak).<br />
Forests <strong>of</strong> ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir,<br />
<strong>and</strong> some Gambel oak.<br />
Repeat-visit VCP Surveys<br />
We recorded 143 species at all repeat-visit VCP<br />
stations combined. We found the most species<br />
in the Riparian community (n = 102 species) <strong>and</strong><br />
fewest species in the Conifer Forest community<br />
(n = 51; Appendix G), though survey effort<br />
among communities was unequal (Table 5.2).<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> species found in the other three<br />
communities was intermediate (Appendix G). As<br />
expected, estimates <strong>of</strong> species richness (using the<br />
1 st order jackknife procedure) followed the same<br />
pattern: the Riparian community was the most<br />
species rich (n = 119 species) <strong>and</strong> the Conifer<br />
Forest was the least species rich (n = 69). The<br />
Sonoran Desertscrub (n = 97 species), Pine-oak<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong> (n = 93 species), <strong>and</strong> Oak Savannah (n<br />
= 79) were intermediate.<br />
We recorded twelve species in all five<br />
communities <strong>and</strong> 39 species in only a single<br />
community (Appendix G). The ash-throated<br />
flycatcher was the most widespread species; we<br />
recorded it on 93% (21 <strong>of</strong> 23) <strong>of</strong> repeat-visit<br />
transects. We recorded four other species at<br />
>75% <strong>of</strong> transects: rufous-crowned sparrow,<br />
common raven, brown-headed cowbird, <strong>and</strong><br />
white-winged dove. We recorded an additional<br />
22 species on >50% <strong>of</strong> transects <strong>and</strong> an equal<br />
number <strong>of</strong> species on only a single transect.<br />
The white-winged dove had the highest mean<br />
frequency <strong>of</strong> detection (1.25 + 0.44) across strata<br />
<strong>and</strong> it was the only species for which we recorded<br />
54<br />
an average <strong>of</strong> over one individual per station.<br />
The mourning dove (0.98 + 0.42) <strong>and</strong> ashthroated<br />
flycatcher (0.85 + 0.24) were the only<br />
other species with relative frequency <strong>of</strong> detection<br />
estimates > 0.75.<br />
There were differences in mean relative<br />
abundance estimates among transects (F 4, 263<br />
= 4.2, P = 0.003, ANOVA on log-transformed<br />
data). Specifically, the Conifer Forest community<br />
was different from both the Riparian <strong>and</strong> Pineoak<br />
Woodl<strong>and</strong> communities (Table 5.3). Mean<br />
species richness per visit also varied among<br />
communities (Table 5.3; F 4, 111 = 6.7, P = < 0.001,<br />
ANOVA). The Riparian community had the most<br />
species per visit <strong>and</strong> was significantly different<br />
from all communities except the Conifer Forest<br />
community.<br />
We calculated relative abundance for 120<br />
species (Table 5.4). The most abundant species<br />
(based on relative abundance estimates) for each<br />
community type were:<br />
• Riparian: verdin, Lucy’s warbler, <strong>and</strong><br />
mourning dove;<br />
• Sonoran Desertscrub: black-throated<br />
sparrow, cactus wren, <strong>and</strong> verdin;<br />
• Oak Savannah: Bewick’s wren, rufouscrowned<br />
sparrow, <strong>and</strong> ash-throated<br />
flycatcher;<br />
• Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong>: Bewick’s wren,<br />
spotted towhee, <strong>and</strong> black-throated gray<br />
warbler;<br />
• Conifer Forest: yellow-eyed junco,<br />
mountain chickadee, <strong>and</strong> spotted towhee<br />
<strong>and</strong> cordilleran flycatcher.<br />
Reconnaissance VCP Surveys<br />
We recorded 75 species during reconnaissance<br />
VCP surveys in 2002, including two species<br />
that we did not record during repeat-visit VCP<br />
Table 5.3. Bird measures by community type <strong>and</strong> compared using Tukey-Kramer multiple pairwise<br />
procedure, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Communities with different<br />
superscripted letter(s) are significantly different (P < 0.05).<br />
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub Oak Savannah Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> Conifer Forest<br />
Bird measure Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE<br />
Relative abundance (log transformed) -3.4 a 0.2 -3.1 a 0.2 -2.7 b 0.2 -3.2 a 0.2 -2.2 b 0.2<br />
Species richness a 25.9 a 0.7 22.1 b 0.8 21.2 b 1.1 20.6 b 0.9 22.1 b 1.2<br />
a From 1 st order jackknife procedure.
Table 5.4. Relative abundance (mean + SD) by community type for birds recorded during repeat-visit VCP<br />
surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Relative abundance estimates<br />
exclude flyovers <strong>and</strong> birds observed >75m from stations. Coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation (CV) is SD divided by the mean;<br />
low CV indicates less within-community variability <strong>of</strong> relative abundance.<br />
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub Oak<br />
Pine-oak Conifer Forest<br />
(n = 4)<br />
(n = 6)<br />
Savannah (n = 4) Woodl<strong>and</strong> (n = 6) (n = 3)<br />
Species Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV<br />
Gambel’s quail 0.50 0.24 0.5 0.06 0.10 1.6 0.14 0.24 1.7<br />
Montezuma quail 0.01 0.02 2.4 0.02 0.03 2.0 0.01 0.02 2.4<br />
turkey vulture 0.01 0.02 2.0<br />
Cooper’s hawk 0.02 0.01 0.7<br />
northern goshawk 0.01 0.02 2.4<br />
gray hawk
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub Oak<br />
Pine-oak Conifer Forest<br />
(n = 4)<br />
(n = 6)<br />
Savannah (n = 4) Woodl<strong>and</strong> (n = 6) (n = 3)<br />
Species Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV<br />
white-breasted nuthatch 0.02 0.03 2.0 0.08 0.11 1.3 0.33 0.29 0.9<br />
pygmy nuthatch 0.17 0.23 1.4<br />
brown creeper 0.14 0.07 0.5<br />
cactus wren 0.57 0.26 0.5 0.75 0.39 0.5 0.21 0.24 1.2<br />
rock wren 0.12 0.15 1.3 0.14 0.10 0.7 0.06 0.08 1.3<br />
canyon wren 0.04 0.05 1.3 0.06 0.07 1.1 0.08 0.06 0.8 0.11 0.08 0.7 0.03 0.03 0.9<br />
Bewick’s wren 0.48 0.22 0.4 0.01 0.02 2.4 0.77 0.09 0.1 1.29 0.26 0.2 0.04 0.08 1.7<br />
house wren
surveys (yellow-breasted chat <strong>and</strong> house sparrow;<br />
Table 5.5). We observed only four species<br />
(brown-crested flycatcher, mourning <strong>and</strong> whitewinged<br />
doves, <strong>and</strong> western tanager) at > 50 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
transects. This is in contrast to the repeat-visit<br />
VCP surveys (Appendix G) <strong>and</strong> is likely because<br />
by visiting a station only once, we missed species<br />
that would probably be recorded on subsequent<br />
surveys.<br />
Line-transect Surveys<br />
We found 63 species during line-transect surveys<br />
in the winter <strong>of</strong> 2002 <strong>and</strong> 2003 including six<br />
species that we did not record during VCP<br />
surveys (Appendix C). We found the most<br />
species along the Lower Rincon Creek transect<br />
(n = 45) <strong>and</strong> fewest along the Douglas Springs<br />
transect (n = 31; Table 5.6). The chipping<br />
sparrow was the most abundant species on two<br />
transects. All three <strong>of</strong> the most abundant species<br />
on the Upper Loma Verde transect (chipping<br />
sparrow, green-tailed towhee, <strong>and</strong> Brewer’s<br />
sparrow) did not breed in the Sonoran Desert<br />
region, whereas the three most abundant species<br />
along the Lower Rincon Creek transect (blackthroated<br />
sparrow, cactus wren, <strong>and</strong> Gambel’s<br />
quail) did breed in the district. Two <strong>of</strong> the three<br />
most abundant species along the Douglas Springs<br />
transect (chipping sparrow <strong>and</strong> western bluebird)<br />
did not breed in the district.<br />
Nocturnal Surveys<br />
We recorded nine species during nocturnal<br />
surveys <strong>of</strong> nine transects (Table 5.7). We found<br />
the most species along the Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong><br />
low-elevation transects combined, though survey<br />
effort was greatest there (Table 5.2). The most<br />
abundant species within a stratum was the elf owl<br />
in the low-elevation stratum (Table 5.7). Only<br />
two species were found only in a single stratum<br />
<strong>and</strong> no species were found in all three. The<br />
great-horned owl was found in the low- <strong>and</strong> high-<br />
elevation strata <strong>and</strong> was certainly missed in the<br />
middle-elevation stratum.<br />
57<br />
Incidental <strong>and</strong> Breeding Observations<br />
We observed 154 species during incidental<br />
observations, including 13 species that we did<br />
not record during other surveys (Appendix C).<br />
We made 288 observations <strong>of</strong> 78 species that<br />
confirmed breeding in or near the district (Table<br />
5.8). Of these we found 104 nests <strong>of</strong> 48 species<br />
including a nest <strong>of</strong> the sulphur-bellied flycatcher<br />
near Happy Valley Saddle. We found two<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> brown-headed cowbird parasitism:<br />
one blue-gray gnatcatcher feeding a fledgling<br />
cowbird <strong>and</strong> one Bell’s vireo nest with a cowbird<br />
egg.<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness<br />
The bird survey effort at the Rincon Mountain<br />
District <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park was the most<br />
comprehensive <strong>of</strong> the eight park units surveyed<br />
by the UA inventory group. We made over<br />
15,000 observations <strong>and</strong> found 85% (n = 173)<br />
<strong>of</strong> the species that had been found previously<br />
in the district (Appendix C), <strong>and</strong> found 10 new<br />
species. These results are unprecedented in the<br />
Sonoran Desert Network, <strong>and</strong> are especially<br />
important given the large size <strong>and</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong><br />
communities <strong>and</strong> difficult access issues in the<br />
district. Considering all <strong>of</strong> the other research <strong>and</strong><br />
site-specific inventory efforts in the district (see<br />
review at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the chapter), we are<br />
confident in concluding that at least 90% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
species that regularly occur in the district have<br />
been recorded.<br />
The species accumulation curve for our<br />
research (from all surveys combined; Fig. 5.4)<br />
shows the number <strong>of</strong> new species dropping <strong>of</strong>f<br />
significantly at approximately halfway through<br />
the inventory. After the first half <strong>of</strong> the surveys,<br />
we found only an additional 8% (n = 14 species)<br />
<strong>of</strong> the species found in the entire effort. A closer<br />
look at the species accumulation curve for repeatvisit<br />
VCP surveys reveals that the Riparian<br />
community had the most complete inventory,<br />
though the other communities show signs <strong>of</strong><br />
reaching an asymptote, particularly the Conifer<br />
Forest community (Fig. 5.5). There is a similar<br />
pattern for the line-transect surveys (Figure 5.6).
Table 5.5. Mean relative abundance <strong>of</strong> birds from reconnaissance VCP surveys by strata <strong>and</strong> transect,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2002.<br />
Elevation Stratum<br />
Low a Middle b High c<br />
Species BWF BT LVW FR FW CC MC DS JS JB NST MMT MM M IS DHS<br />
Gambel’s quail 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.3<br />
zone-tailed hawk 0.4<br />
white-winged dove 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.2<br />
mourning dove 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1<br />
black-chinned hummingbird 0.3<br />
Anna’s hummingbird 0.1 0.2<br />
broad-tailed hummingbird 0.1 0.1<br />
rufous hummingbird 0.1<br />
acorn woodpecker 0.2<br />
Gila woodpecker 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3<br />
hairy woodpecker 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2<br />
northern flicker 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2<br />
gilded flicker 0.2<br />
northern beardless-tyrannulet 0.1<br />
greater pewee 0.1 0.1<br />
western wood-pewee 0.2 0.4 1.0<br />
cordilleran flycatcher 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3<br />
black phoebe 0.1<br />
dusky-capped flycatcher 0.2 0.3<br />
ash-throated flycatcher 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4<br />
brown-crested flycatcher 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.2<br />
Cassin’s kingbird 0.1<br />
Bell’s vireo 0.8 1.2<br />
plumbeous vireo 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4<br />
Hutton’s vireo 0.2<br />
warbling vireo 0.3 0.1<br />
Steller’s jay 0.5 0.2 0.3<br />
Mexican jay 0.6 0.2<br />
purple martin 0.4 0.2 0.3<br />
mountain chickadee 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3<br />
bridled titmouse 0.2<br />
verdin 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.3<br />
bushtit 1.6<br />
red-breasted nuthatch 0.3<br />
white-breasted nuthatch 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2<br />
pygmy nuthatch 0.3 1.0 0.6<br />
brown creeper 0.1 0.2<br />
cactus wren 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.7 1.3<br />
canyon wren 0.3 0.3<br />
Bewick’s wren 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4<br />
house wren 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6<br />
blue-gray gnatcatcher 0.6<br />
black-tailed gnatcatcher 0.3 0.8 0.1<br />
western bluebird 0.3 0.4<br />
hermit thrush 0.4 0.4 0.1<br />
American robin 0.3 0.4 0.2<br />
northern mockingbird 0.1<br />
curve-billed thrasher 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3<br />
phainopepla 0.1<br />
olive warbler 0.3 0.4<br />
Virginia’s warbler 0.1<br />
Lucy’s warbler 1.0 0.3 0.5<br />
yellow-rumped warbler 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2<br />
black-throated gray warbler 0.5 0.6<br />
Grace’s warbler 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.2<br />
red-faced warbler 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4<br />
painted redstart 0.1<br />
yellow-breasted chat 0.1<br />
hepatic tanager 0.5 0.2 0.1<br />
58
Elevation Stratum<br />
Low a Middle b High c<br />
Species BWF BT LVW FR FW CC MC DS JS JB NST MMT MM M IS DHS<br />
western tanager 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.2<br />
spotted towhee 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.4 1.4<br />
canyon towhee 0.3 0.4 0.3<br />
rufous-winged sparrow 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2<br />
rufous-crowned sparrow 0.1<br />
black-chinned sparrow 0.1<br />
black-throated sparrow 1.3 0.3 0.2<br />
yellow-eyed junco 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.6 0.3 1.0<br />
northern cardinal 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7<br />
pyrrhuloxia 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3<br />
black-headed grosbeak 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2<br />
blue grosbeak 0.1 0.2<br />
varied bunting 0.2 0.2<br />
brown-headed cowbird 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2<br />
house finch 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.5 0.2<br />
house sparrow 0.3<br />
a < 4000 feet elevation: BWF = Bridal Wreath Falls, BT = Broadway Trailhead, LVW = Loma Verde Wash, FR = Freeman Road,<br />
FW = Freeman Wash, CC = Chimenea Canyon, MC = Madrona Canyon.<br />
b 4,000 – 6,000 feet elevation: DST = Douglas Springs Trail, JB = Juniper Springs.<br />
c > 6,000 feet elevation: JB = Juniper Basin, NST = North Slope Trail, MMT = Mica Mountain Trail, MM = Mica Mountain,<br />
M = Manning Cabin, IS = Italian Springs, DHS = Deer Head Spring.<br />
We believe that we recorded all but a<br />
few species that were breeding in the district at<br />
the time <strong>of</strong> the inventory. The breeding status<br />
<strong>of</strong> only a few species remains questionable,<br />
either because we did not record them during<br />
the breeding season, or because we failed to<br />
document breeding activity. Species that we<br />
believe are regular breeders in the district, but<br />
for which there has been no evidence <strong>of</strong> breeding<br />
(Short 1996, Frederici 1998, Powell 1999, 2004)<br />
include the sharp-shinned hawk, gray vireo,<br />
northern beardless-tyrannulet, northern roughwinged<br />
swallow, loggerhead shrike, juniper<br />
titmouse, Bendire’s thrasher, European starling,<br />
yellow-breasted chat, bronzed cowbird, <strong>and</strong> pine<br />
siskin. All <strong>of</strong> these species were seen only a few<br />
times or not at all during the peak breeding time<br />
for the species. Most species that we observed<br />
throughout the breeding season are assumed to<br />
have bred in the district, even though we found<br />
no evidence <strong>of</strong> nesting (Table 5.8; see also<br />
Appendix C for list <strong>of</strong> all species that have been<br />
observed breeding in the district). This group<br />
includes the greater roadrunner, western scrubjay,<br />
red-breasted nuthatch, <strong>and</strong> brown creeper.<br />
Also, there are at least two species (wild turkey<br />
<strong>and</strong> scaled quail) that we observed only once but<br />
that we assume nested in the district because they<br />
maintain year-round home ranges that probably<br />
59<br />
include the district. Species that we saw during<br />
the breeding season, but that were unlikely to<br />
have nested in the district (because we made an<br />
effort to determine their breeding status), were<br />
the yellow-billed cuckoo, buff-breasted flycatcher<br />
(a single male was observed in the same location<br />
for four years; Chris Kirkpatrick, pers. comm.),<br />
<strong>and</strong> elegant trogon.<br />
Based on nesting records or possible<br />
nesting attempts in nearby areas (e.g., Corman<br />
<strong>and</strong> Wise-Gervais 2005), there are a number <strong>of</strong><br />
species that may have nested in the recent past<br />
or may nest in the district irregularly. We review<br />
these species by vegetation community:<br />
• Low-elevation Sonoran Desertscrub/<br />
Southwestern Deciduous Riparian: ruddy<br />
ground dove (Columbina talpacoti),<br />
buff-collared nightjar (Caprimulgus<br />
ridgwayi), violet-crowned hummingbird<br />
(Amazilia violiceps), northern roughwinged<br />
swallow, thick-billed kingbird<br />
(Tyrannus crassirostris), <strong>and</strong> indigo bunting<br />
(Passerina cyanea).<br />
• Semi-desert Grassl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or Oak<br />
Savannah: northern harrier <strong>and</strong> Swainson’s<br />
hawk.<br />
• Pine-oak <strong>and</strong>/or Conifer Forests: northern<br />
saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus),<br />
long-eared owl (Asio otus), white-eared
Table 5.6. Relative abundance (mean + SE) <strong>of</strong> birds from line-transect surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2002 <strong>and</strong> 2003.<br />
Transect<br />
Upper Loma Verde Lower Rincon Creek Douglas Spring<br />
(n = 36)<br />
(n = 52)<br />
(n = 48)<br />
Species<br />
Gambel’s quail<br />
Mean<br />
0.86<br />
SE<br />
0.372<br />
Mean<br />
0.94<br />
SE<br />
0.436<br />
Mean<br />
0.19<br />
SE<br />
0.132<br />
Cooper’s hawk 0.04 0.027<br />
red-tailed hawk 0.06 0.033 0.04 0.029<br />
American kestrel 0.03 0.028 0.02 0.019 0.04 0.029<br />
mourning dove 0.17 0.085 0.12 0.045<br />
great horned owl 0.06 0.039<br />
Anna’s hummingbird 0.03 0.028<br />
Gila woodpecker 0.86 0.160 0.71 0.133 0.02 0.021<br />
red-naped sapsucker 0.02 0.019<br />
ladder-backed woodpecker 0.31 0.104 0.29 0.084 0.06 0.035<br />
northern flicker 0.17 0.053 0.08 0.050<br />
gilded flicker 0.08 0.061 0.23 0.081<br />
black phoebe 0.02 0.019<br />
Say’s phoebe 0.03 0.028 0.02 0.019<br />
ash-throated flycatcher 0.02 0.019<br />
loggerhead shrike 0.04 0.029<br />
western scrub-jay 0.19 0.078 0.08 0.037 0.25 0.082<br />
Mexican jay 0.13 0.092<br />
common raven 0.06 0.039 0.02 0.019 0.23 0.189<br />
violet-green swallow 0.11 0.111<br />
bridled titmouse 0.46 0.193<br />
juniper titmouse 0.04 0.042<br />
verdin 0.42 0.101 0.48 0.105 0.27 0.077<br />
bushtit 0.69 0.455<br />
white-breasted nuthatch 0.02 0.021<br />
cactus wren 0.78 0.155 1.04 0.162 0.17 0.069<br />
rock wren 0.03 0.028 0.12 0.045<br />
canyon wren 0.04 0.029<br />
Bewick’s wren 0.42 0.092 0.33 0.081 0.56 0.094<br />
house wren 0.15 0.051<br />
ruby-crowned kinglet 0.39 0.121 0.42 0.104 0.42 0.102<br />
black-tailed gnatcatcher 0.25 0.092 0.13 0.062<br />
western bluebird 0.06 0.058 0.79 0.339<br />
Townsend’s solitaire 0.35 0.109<br />
hermit thrush 0.04 0.027<br />
American robin 0.06 0.058 0.04 0.029<br />
northern mockingbird 0.08 0.047<br />
curve-billed thrasher 0.75 0.151 0.63 0.113<br />
crissal thrasher 0.03 0.028 0.17 0.062<br />
cedar waxwing 0.42 0.297<br />
phainopepla 0.11 0.066 0.08 0.037 0.04 0.029<br />
yellow-rumped warbler 0.08 0.083<br />
green-tailed towhee 1.22 0.165 0.08 0.037<br />
spotted towhee 0.17 0.063 0.02 0.019 0.44 0.084<br />
canyon towhee 0.58 0.175 0.37 0.087 0.81 0.165<br />
Abert’s towhee 0.03 0.028 0.13 0.048<br />
rufous-winged sparrow 0.89 0.182 0.88 0.144<br />
rufous-crowned sparrow 0.52 0.115<br />
chipping sparrow 2.36 0.785 0.40 0.279 2.54 0.932<br />
Brewer’s sparrow 1.03 0.477 0.10 0.096<br />
black-chinned sparrow 0.06 0.033<br />
vesper sparrow 0.08 0.046<br />
Lincoln’s sparrow 0.12 0.052<br />
black-throated sparrow 0.33 0.120 1.17 0.329<br />
white-crowned sparrow 0.72 0.162<br />
dark-eyed junco 0.06 0.028 0.25 0.082 0.25 0.053<br />
northern cardinal 0.19 0.087 0.37 0.126<br />
pyrrhuloxia 0.03 0.028 0.10 0.050<br />
eastern meadowlark 0.10 0.074<br />
house finch 1.00 0.298 0.62 0.135 0.06 0.035<br />
pine siskin 0.10 0.096<br />
lesser goldfinch 0.52 0.295<br />
Lawrence’s goldfinch 0.03 0.028<br />
60
Table 5.7. Mean relative abundance <strong>of</strong> birds from nocturnal surveys by elevation strata <strong>and</strong> transect,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Low elevation<br />
Cactus Forest Rincon Box<br />
Middle elevation<br />
Cowhead Happy Valley Juniper<br />
High elevation<br />
Italian Spud<br />
Species<br />
barn owl<br />
Loop Drive Creek<br />
0.05<br />
Canyon Saddle Saddle Basin Manning Spring Rock<br />
flammulated owl 0.33 0.25<br />
western screech-owl 0.7 0.55 1.38 1.67<br />
whiskered screech-owl 1 0.33 0.19<br />
great horned owl 0.37 0.05 0.5 0.06<br />
elf owl 2.37 1.77 2 0.13 0.33<br />
lesser nighthawk 0.07 0.05<br />
common poorwill 0.57 0.59 0.13<br />
whip-poor-will 0.67 1.13 0.5 0.25<br />
Table 5.8. Number <strong>of</strong> breeding behavior observations for birds from all survey types, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Breeding behaviors follow st<strong>and</strong>ards set by NAOAC (1990).<br />
Nest<br />
Adults carrying<br />
objects Other<br />
61<br />
Recently<br />
fledged<br />
young Totals<br />
With With Occu-<br />
Nesting Distraction Feeding recently<br />
Species<br />
Gambel’s quail<br />
Cooper’s hawk<br />
northern goshawk<br />
Harris’s hawk<br />
zone-tailed hawk<br />
red-tailed hawk<br />
b<strong>and</strong>-tailed pigeon<br />
white-winged dove<br />
mourning dove<br />
great horned owl<br />
lesser nighthawk<br />
common poorwill<br />
whip-poor-will<br />
black-chinned hummingbird<br />
Costa’s hummingbird<br />
acorn woodpecker<br />
Gila woodpecker<br />
hairy woodpecker<br />
Arizona woodpecker<br />
gilded flicker<br />
western wood-pewee<br />
cordilleran flycatcher<br />
Say’s phoebe<br />
vermilion flycatcher<br />
ash-throated flycatcher<br />
brown-crested flycatcher<br />
sulphur-bellied flycatcher<br />
Cassin’s kingbird<br />
western kingbird<br />
Bell’s vireo<br />
plumbeous vireo<br />
Hutton’s vireo<br />
warbling vireo<br />
Mexican jay<br />
common raven<br />
purple martin<br />
bridled titmouse<br />
Building<br />
2<br />
1<br />
3<br />
eggs<br />
1<br />
1<br />
4<br />
4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
8<br />
young<br />
1<br />
2<br />
4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
pied<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
8<br />
Food<br />
2<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
3<br />
material<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
displays<br />
1<br />
fledged young<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
2<br />
4<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
5<br />
5<br />
2<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
10<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
9<br />
9<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
12<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
10<br />
1
Nest<br />
Adults carrying<br />
objects Other<br />
62<br />
Discussion<br />
Recently<br />
fledged<br />
young Totals<br />
With With Occu-<br />
Nesting Distraction Feeding recently<br />
Species<br />
verdin<br />
bushtit<br />
white-breasted nuthatch<br />
pygmy nuthatch<br />
cactus wren<br />
rock wren<br />
canyon wren<br />
Bewick’s wren<br />
house wren<br />
blue-gray gnatcatcher<br />
black-tailed gnatcatcher<br />
western bluebird<br />
hermit thrush<br />
American robin<br />
northern mockingbird<br />
curve-billed thrasher<br />
phainopepla<br />
Virginia’s warbler<br />
Lucy’s warbler<br />
yellow-rumped warbler<br />
black-throated gray warbler<br />
Grace’s warbler<br />
red-faced warbler<br />
painted redstart<br />
hepatic tanager<br />
summer tanager<br />
western tanager<br />
spotted towhee<br />
canyon towhee<br />
Abert’s towhee<br />
rufous-winged sparrow<br />
rufous-crowned sparrow<br />
black-chinned sparrow<br />
black-throated sparrow<br />
yellow-eyed junco<br />
northern cardinal<br />
pyrrhuloxia<br />
blue grosbeak<br />
brown-headed cowbird<br />
Scott’s oriole<br />
house finch<br />
Building<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
eggs<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
young<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
pied<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
Food<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
4<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
3<br />
3<br />
4<br />
1<br />
material<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
displays<br />
1<br />
fledged young<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
5<br />
2<br />
1<br />
8<br />
1<br />
1<br />
7<br />
4<br />
13<br />
7<br />
4<br />
2<br />
1<br />
6<br />
2<br />
2<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
1<br />
6<br />
2<br />
5<br />
3<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
8<br />
2<br />
5<br />
7<br />
4<br />
6<br />
5<br />
6<br />
2<br />
3<br />
1<br />
4<br />
13<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
11<br />
9<br />
15<br />
14<br />
6<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
2<br />
hummingbird (Hylocharis leucotis),<br />
blue-throated hummingbird (Lampornis<br />
clemenciae), golden-crowned kinglet<br />
(Regulus satrapa), Townsend’s solitaire<br />
(Myadestes townsendi), flame-colored<br />
tanager (Piranga bidentata), red crossbill<br />
(Loxia curvirostra), <strong>and</strong> evening grosbeak<br />
(Coccothraustes vespertinus).<br />
The district will likely gain some nesting<br />
species in the coming few years. For example,<br />
one non-native species, the Eurasian collareddove<br />
(Streptopelia decaocto) has recently<br />
established breeding populations in the region<br />
(Corman <strong>and</strong> Wise-Gervais 2005).<br />
The bird community in the Rincon Mountain<br />
District <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park is diverse <strong>and</strong><br />
is a function <strong>of</strong> the many biotic communities<br />
present in the Rincon Mountains, from Sonoran<br />
Desertscrub to Conifer Forest. Vegetation<br />
responds to the extreme differences in elevation,<br />
soils, <strong>and</strong> rainfall (see Chapter 3), <strong>and</strong> vegetation<br />
is one <strong>of</strong> the most important predictors <strong>of</strong><br />
bird community structure (James 1971). This<br />
relationship is supported by the results <strong>of</strong> our<br />
inventory; the 23 repeat-visit VCP transects<br />
were classified into five distinct communities<br />
(Fig. 5.3). Important vegetation characteristics
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
200<br />
180<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50<br />
Sample period<br />
Figure 5.4. Species accumulation curve for all survey methods for birds, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Each sample period is a r<strong>and</strong>omized<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> approximately 250 observations.<br />
that consistently predict occurrence <strong>of</strong> bird<br />
species include vertical structure (MacArthur<br />
<strong>and</strong> MacArthur 1961, Cody 1981), horizontal<br />
patchiness (heterogeneity; Roth 1976, Kotliar<br />
<strong>and</strong> Weins 1990), <strong>and</strong> floristics (Rice et al. 1984,<br />
Strong <strong>and</strong> Bock 1990). To even the most casual<br />
observer, there are extreme changes in all <strong>of</strong> the<br />
characteristics from the valley floor to the highest<br />
points <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains. This pattern<br />
<strong>of</strong> vegetation change across altitude <strong>and</strong> aspect<br />
is typical <strong>of</strong> the “sky isl<strong>and</strong>” mountain ranges<br />
<strong>of</strong> southern Arizona <strong>and</strong> adjacent Mexico (e.g.,<br />
Whittaker <strong>and</strong> Niering 1965).<br />
Although the district contains a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> biotic communities that are characteristic<br />
<strong>of</strong> the sky isl<strong>and</strong> mountains, it shares one <strong>of</strong><br />
the biogeographic traits with the herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />
community: it is not as species rich as the sky<br />
isl<strong>and</strong> ranges to the south. In particular, ranges<br />
in the U.S., such as the Chiricahua (Taylor 1997)<br />
<strong>and</strong> Huachuca mountains regularly host breeding<br />
species that have strictly Madrean distributions<br />
including the Lucifer (Calothorax lucifer),<br />
Berylline (Amazilia beryllina), <strong>and</strong> violet-<br />
63<br />
crowned (Amazilia violiceps) hummingbirds,<br />
eared trogon (Euptilotis neoxenus), Mexican<br />
chickadee (Poecile sclateri), <strong>and</strong> flame-colored<br />
tanager (Piranga bidentata), to name a few.<br />
Although it likely that some <strong>of</strong> these species<br />
(e.g., blue-throated hummingbird [Lampornis<br />
clemenciae]) occasionally appear in the Rincon<br />
Mountains (see <strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness), our<br />
surveys provide further evidence that these<br />
species do not regularly occur there. Two species<br />
that reach their northern breeding distribution<br />
in the district (or nearby mountain ranges) are<br />
the buff-breasted flycatcher <strong>and</strong> sulphur-bellied<br />
flycatcher. We found the first confirmation <strong>of</strong><br />
breeding for the sulphur-bellied flycatcher in<br />
the district, <strong>and</strong> the buff-breasted flycatcher<br />
may breed there occasionally. A third Madrean<br />
species, the elegant trogon, may also occasionally<br />
breed in the Rincon Mountains, but there has<br />
been no confirmation <strong>of</strong> this.<br />
An important resource for birds in the<br />
district is the riparian corridor along Rincon<br />
Creek, which had higher species richness than<br />
any other area in the district (Appendix G).
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
0 10 20 30<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
Powell (2004) compared the bird community<br />
along Rincon Creek to adjacent upl<strong>and</strong> sites <strong>and</strong>,<br />
partially using data contained in this report, found<br />
the riparian area to have more than twice as many<br />
species. Studies elsewhere in the Southwest<br />
have found similar patterns (Carothers et al.<br />
1974, Whitmore 1975). Even among riparian<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> the district, the Lower Rincon Creek<br />
transect st<strong>and</strong>s out as the most species-rich area<br />
<strong>of</strong> the district for both VCP (Appendix G) <strong>and</strong><br />
line-transect surveys (Table 5.6). We found four<br />
species that were restricted to riparian areas in<br />
the Southwest (Rosenberg et al. 1991) <strong>and</strong> that<br />
Sample period<br />
Sample period<br />
64<br />
Sonoran Desert Upl<strong>and</strong><br />
Oak Savanna<br />
Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong><br />
Conifer Forest<br />
Riparian<br />
0<br />
0 20 40 60 80<br />
Figure 5.5. Species accumulation curves for repeat-visit VCP transects from the five communities, <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Each sample period is a r<strong>and</strong>omized combination<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 50 observations. Data include all observations from VCP surveys including flyovers <strong>and</strong> bird<br />
observed within 300 m <strong>of</strong> stations. Note difference in scale for sampling period.<br />
were consistent members <strong>of</strong> the bird community<br />
along Rincon Creek: Bell’s vireo, Abert’s towhee,<br />
summer tanager, <strong>and</strong> yellow warbler (Table<br />
5.4). Other riparian species that we observed<br />
along Rincon Creek included the mallard, gray<br />
hawk, belted kingfisher, <strong>and</strong> northern beardless-<br />
tyrannulet.<br />
Although riparian areas in the<br />
Southwest, such as Rincon Creek, are home to<br />
a disproportionate number <strong>of</strong> bird species, these<br />
areas are decreasing in both size <strong>and</strong> habitat<br />
quality (Rosenberg et al 1991, Russell <strong>and</strong><br />
Monson 1998). This is evident along Rincon
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0 5 10 15 20<br />
Creek where many <strong>of</strong> the large riparian trees<br />
are in poor condition (Powell 2004); some<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> riparian bird species may have already<br />
occurred. For example, the yellow-billed cuckoo<br />
<strong>and</strong> song sparrow, both riparian obligate birds<br />
are common in nearby Cienega Creek (Corman<br />
<strong>and</strong> Magill 2000), <strong>and</strong> there is no reason to<br />
believe that with healthier riparian vegetation<br />
these species would not be found along Rincon<br />
Creek as well. The current drought has certainly<br />
affected the health <strong>of</strong> the riparian system. The<br />
decline in the amount <strong>and</strong> timing <strong>of</strong> surface water<br />
availability is also likely affected by the recent<br />
increase in groundwater pumping supplying the<br />
explosive growth <strong>of</strong> housing <strong>and</strong> commercial<br />
development in the Rincon Valley (see Chapter<br />
2). Because birds are so closely tied to vegetation<br />
characteristics, the loss <strong>and</strong> degradation <strong>of</strong> large<br />
riparian trees will mean a reduction in the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> species <strong>and</strong> abundance <strong>of</strong> some riparianobligate<br />
birds along the creek. The threat <strong>of</strong><br />
losing groundwater <strong>and</strong> (by extension) surface<br />
water to development, recently prompted the park<br />
to file in-stream flow water rights in an effort to<br />
ensure the long-term viability <strong>of</strong> the riparian area.<br />
They have also initiated studies <strong>of</strong> the plant <strong>and</strong><br />
Sample period<br />
Figure 5.6. Species accumulation curve for line-transects for birds, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2002-2003. Each sample period is a r<strong>and</strong>omized<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> approximately 50 observations.<br />
65<br />
vertebrate communities <strong>of</strong> the area (e.g., Powell<br />
2004).<br />
Housing developments in the Rincon<br />
Valley, in particular, will also likely affect the<br />
bird community through an increase in nonnative<br />
(rock pigeon, European starling, <strong>and</strong> house<br />
sparrow) <strong>and</strong> human-adapted species (e.g., the<br />
great-tailed grackle, mourning dove, house finch,<br />
<strong>and</strong> brown-headed cowbird). The increase in<br />
density <strong>of</strong> human-adapted species invariably<br />
follows housing developments <strong>and</strong> these changes<br />
usually lead to the decline in densities <strong>of</strong> nonhuman-adapted<br />
species, especially in the areas<br />
immediately adjacent to development (Mills et<br />
al. 1989, Germaine et al. 1998). Mannan <strong>and</strong><br />
Bibles (1989) suggest a number <strong>of</strong> ways to reduce<br />
the impact <strong>of</strong> non-native bird species on the<br />
district’s wildlife including (1) limiting density <strong>of</strong><br />
housing near the district boundary, (2) reducing<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> horses, (3) limiting sources <strong>of</strong> open<br />
water, <strong>and</strong> (4) limiting l<strong>and</strong>scaping with nonnative<br />
plants, especially lawns. Many <strong>of</strong> these<br />
measures are effective in reducing native, humanadapted<br />
species as well.<br />
An increase in nearby housing may<br />
facilitate the spread <strong>of</strong> non-native plants, which
can impact other native plant <strong>and</strong> vertebrate<br />
communities through alteration <strong>of</strong> vegetation<br />
structure <strong>and</strong> ecosystem function. Also<br />
associated with housing developments are<br />
increases in the number <strong>of</strong> free-roaming feral<br />
pets, which kill <strong>and</strong> harass native wildlife (Clarke<br />
<strong>and</strong> Pacin 2002). Finally, with development<br />
come roads, which act as barriers to movement<br />
<strong>of</strong> wildlife because <strong>of</strong> direct mortality <strong>and</strong><br />
modification <strong>of</strong> behavior (e.g., Kline <strong>and</strong> Swann<br />
1998, Trombulak <strong>and</strong> Frissell 2000, Clark et al.<br />
2001, Cain et al. 2003).<br />
Wildl<strong>and</strong> fire has always played a major<br />
role in shaping pine-oak woodl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> conifer<br />
forests <strong>of</strong> western North America. At the Rincon<br />
Mountain District, the forests have experienced<br />
low- to moderate-intensity burns approximately<br />
every decade since the 15 th century (Swetnam<br />
<strong>and</strong> Baisan 1996). Recently (last 100 years)<br />
active fire suppression has reduced the frequency<br />
<strong>of</strong> these low- <strong>and</strong> moderate-intensity burns, <strong>and</strong><br />
increased the occurrence <strong>of</strong> high-intensity burns<br />
(Allen 1996, Pyne 1996, Swetnam et al. 1999)<br />
that radically alter forest structure (Swetnam <strong>and</strong><br />
Baisan 1996). Using data (in part) from surveys<br />
in the district, Kirkpatrick <strong>and</strong> Conway (2006)<br />
found a number <strong>of</strong> bird species to be positively<br />
associated with the occurrence <strong>of</strong> fire in pine-oak<br />
woodl<strong>and</strong>s. In particular, they found the hairy<br />
woodpecker, greater pewee, western wood pewee,<br />
white-breasted nuthatch, Virginia’s warbler, house<br />
wren, spotted towhee, <strong>and</strong> yellow-eyed junco to<br />
be positively associated with moderate- to high-<br />
intensity fires. These species were common in<br />
the Conifer Forest community (Table 5.4) <strong>and</strong><br />
may reflect the recent fire history <strong>of</strong> these areas.<br />
Short (2002) studied the effects <strong>of</strong> prescribed<br />
fire on the high-elevation bird community <strong>of</strong><br />
the district. She found inconsistent results<br />
with regard to population changes <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
common species, but nest success <strong>of</strong> the groundnesting<br />
yellow-eyed junco declined dramatically<br />
the year following fires. Recent large st<strong>and</strong>replacing<br />
fires in the nearby Santa Catalina<br />
Mountains should reinforce to park managers the<br />
vital role <strong>of</strong> an active prescribed-burning program<br />
<strong>and</strong> a fire management program that allows for<br />
some natural fires to burn their course. The park<br />
has both <strong>of</strong> these programs <strong>and</strong> they should be<br />
66<br />
commended for using fire to restore the district’s<br />
high-elevation communities. We encourage<br />
managers to include bird monitoring in these<br />
programs (see below).<br />
The district’s bird community has<br />
undoubtedly undergone significant changes in the<br />
recent past. In addition to a changed fire regime<br />
in the high-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the district, the<br />
low-elevation <strong>and</strong> semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong> areas<br />
have experienced an increase in shrubs <strong>and</strong> cacti.<br />
Unfortunately, there are no baseline data to which<br />
we can compare our results. There are a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> species that probably occurred in the district<br />
<strong>and</strong> that have undergone range-wide population<br />
declines. Based on its distribution in the<br />
nearby mountain ranges, the thick-billed parrot<br />
(Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha) was probably<br />
resident in the Rincon Mountains at the turn <strong>of</strong><br />
the 20 th century (Phillips et al. 1964). Similarly<br />
the Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis) was<br />
considered common in the semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
<strong>of</strong> southeastern Arizona in the late 19 th <strong>and</strong> early<br />
20 th centuries, but no longer occurs in the region.<br />
The district lies within the historical range for<br />
this species (Keddy-Hector 1998), <strong>and</strong> based<br />
on its habitat requirements, it would have been<br />
likely to occur on the north side <strong>of</strong> the district<br />
near Douglas Springs. The eastern bluebird<br />
probably bred in the district; it bred in Happy<br />
Valley (just east <strong>of</strong> the park boundary) <strong>and</strong> in the<br />
nearby Santa Catalina Mountains in the 1970s<br />
(Corman <strong>and</strong> Wise-Gervais 2005) but no longer<br />
nests in these areas. There were a few incidental<br />
records <strong>of</strong> the California condor (Gymnogyps<br />
californianus) in the sky isl<strong>and</strong> region in the<br />
1880s (Phillips et al. 1964).<br />
Additional Research Needed<br />
The bird community along Rincon Creek is<br />
likely to change more than any other community<br />
in the district if the drought <strong>and</strong> groundwater<br />
pumping continue. The inclusion <strong>of</strong> birds in the<br />
I&M program is encouraging <strong>and</strong> we suggest<br />
that emphasis be put on important areas such as<br />
Rincon Creek. Courtney Conway (University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona) is preparing to determine reproductive<br />
success <strong>of</strong> riparian birds along Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong><br />
similar nearby areas to investigate the impacts <strong>of</strong>
surface water availability on habitat quality (i.e.,<br />
reproduction). Additional monitoring should be<br />
focused in the middle- <strong>and</strong> high-elevation areas<br />
<strong>of</strong> district <strong>and</strong> it may be possible to combine<br />
some <strong>of</strong> this monitoring with the fire-effects<br />
monitoring program.<br />
Because birds are highly mobile, we<br />
expect new species will be added to the district<br />
list for years to come. Surveys in areas that are<br />
67<br />
difficult to access (e.g., Douglas Springs area)<br />
will be most likely to yield new species. Also,<br />
surveys during the fall, winter, <strong>and</strong> early spring<br />
will likely add species to the list. We also<br />
encourage the breeding-status clarification <strong>of</strong> a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> species that we expect breed in the<br />
district, but that we were not able to confirm (see<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness).
Chapter 6: Mammal <strong>Inventory</strong><br />
Don E. Swann <strong>and</strong> Brian F. Powell<br />
Previous <strong>and</strong> Ongoing Research<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park has never had a<br />
comprehensive survey <strong>of</strong> its mammals, <strong>and</strong><br />
surprisingly little research has been conducted<br />
on mammals in the Rincon Mountain District<br />
considering the park’s long history as a national<br />
park. However, a few studies provide valuable<br />
information on mammals, particularly Lowell<br />
Sumner’s work in the mid-20 th Century (Sumner<br />
1951) <strong>and</strong> Russell Davis <strong>and</strong> Ronnie Sidner’s<br />
survey <strong>of</strong> mammals in the high country <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Rincons in the early 1990s (Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner<br />
1992). H. Brown <strong>and</strong> L. Huey (unpubl. data)<br />
made collecting trips to the Rincons in 1911 <strong>and</strong><br />
1932, respectively (Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner 1992). In<br />
addition, the park’s administrative records at the<br />
Western Archaeological <strong>and</strong> Conservation Center<br />
contain invaluable files (dating from the 1940s<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1950s) on mammal sightings <strong>and</strong> species <strong>of</strong><br />
concern including the Mexican gray wolf <strong>and</strong> tree<br />
squirrels.<br />
More recently, M’Closkey (1980 <strong>and</strong><br />
citations therein) <strong>and</strong> Duncan (1990) trapped<br />
small mammals in desert areas <strong>of</strong> the district.<br />
Albrecht (2001) <strong>and</strong> Flesch (2001), using the<br />
small-mammal trapping data from this inventory<br />
effort, analyzed patterns <strong>of</strong> species richness<br />
<strong>and</strong> relative abundance for both units <strong>of</strong> the<br />
district. (Copies <strong>of</strong> these reports are available<br />
in the archive locations cited in Chapter 1).<br />
Small mammals were also included in surveys<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Rincon Valley expansion area in the<br />
1990s (Fitzgerald 1996, Bucci 2001) <strong>and</strong> in the<br />
recent PULSE study <strong>of</strong> the Madrona Pools area<br />
(Swann 2003). Both large <strong>and</strong> small mammals<br />
were included in surveys <strong>of</strong> the Rocking K<br />
Ranch adjacent to the district during the early<br />
1990s, but most <strong>of</strong> the large mammals recorded<br />
in these surveys (Lynn 1996) are based on<br />
sightings by local residents that may not be<br />
credible. The small mammal report by Fitzgerald<br />
(1996) contains a species (hispid pocket mouse<br />
[Perognatus hispidis]) not previously known to<br />
occur in the Rincon Mountains <strong>and</strong> Fitzgerald did<br />
69<br />
not collect a specimen voucher. Similarly, a large<br />
mammal report for the expansion area (Fitzgerald<br />
1996) is based largely on identification <strong>of</strong> scat<br />
<strong>and</strong> burrows, which we do not consider reliable.<br />
The inventory <strong>of</strong> bats is probably nearly complete<br />
because <strong>of</strong> Ronnie Sidner’s extensive surveys<br />
for the last 15 years (Sidner 1991, Sidner <strong>and</strong><br />
Davis 1994, Sidner 2003). Finally, park staff<br />
have been collecting observations <strong>of</strong> wildlife<br />
for several decades. Most <strong>of</strong> these sightings,<br />
while not entirely reliable, have been entered<br />
into a database <strong>and</strong> mapped in a GIS, <strong>and</strong> are<br />
available in a supplement to this report. Other<br />
sightings remain uncataloged in logbooks from<br />
the Manning Camp Ranger Station <strong>and</strong> other<br />
sources; many <strong>of</strong> these uncataloged sightings<br />
were summarized by Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner (1992).<br />
Methods<br />
We surveyed for mammals using five field<br />
methods: (1) trapping for rodents <strong>and</strong> ground<br />
squirrels (primarily nocturnal; hereafter referred<br />
to collectively as small mammals), (2) infraredtriggered<br />
photography for medium <strong>and</strong> large<br />
mammals, (3) netting for bats, (4) pitfall traps<br />
for shrews <strong>and</strong> pocket gophers, <strong>and</strong> (5) incidental<br />
observations for all mammals.<br />
Small Mammals<br />
Field Methods<br />
We trapped small mammals using Sherman<br />
live traps (folding aluminum or steel, 3 x 3.5<br />
x 9”; H. B. Sherman, Inc., Tallahassee, FL)<br />
set in grids (White et al. 1983) along focalpoint<br />
transects; Figs. 6.1, 6.2). We opened<br />
<strong>and</strong> baited (one tablespoon: 16 parts dried<br />
oatmeal to one part peanut butter) traps in the<br />
evening, then checked <strong>and</strong> closed traps the<br />
following morning. We placed a small amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> polyester batting in each trap to prevent trap<br />
deaths due to cold nighttime temperatures. We<br />
marked each captured animal with a permanent<br />
marker to facilitate recognition; these “batch
focal point<br />
marks” appeared to last for the duration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sampling period. For each animal we recorded<br />
species, sex, age class (adult, subadult, or<br />
juvenile), reproductive condition, weight, <strong>and</strong><br />
measurements for right-hind foot, tail, ear, head,<br />
<strong>and</strong> body. For males we recorded reproductive<br />
condition as either scrotal or non-reproductive;<br />
for females we recorded reproductive condition<br />
as one or more <strong>of</strong> the following: non-reproducing,<br />
open pubis, closed pubis, enlarged nipples, small<br />
or non-present nipples, lactating, post-lactating,<br />
or non-lactating.<br />
Spatial Sampling Design<br />
The majority <strong>of</strong> our trapping effort in 2001<br />
was at focal-point transects set throughout the<br />
district (Fig. 6.3; see Chapter 1). We trapped<br />
at a subset <strong>of</strong> nine r<strong>and</strong>om transects that were<br />
surveyed for other taxonomic groups (two, four,<br />
<strong>and</strong> three transects in the low-, medium-, <strong>and</strong><br />
high-elevation strata, respectively). We visited<br />
1000 m<br />
Figure 6.1. Layout <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping grids along focal-point transects, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
2001. See Fig. 6.2 for more details.<br />
Figure 6.2. Detailed layout <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping grids at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, 2001 <strong>and</strong><br />
2002. We used 3x7 trap grids in 50x100 m plots (A) from mid‑April through mid‑June <strong>and</strong> 5x5 trap grids in<br />
50x50 m plots (B) from mid‑June through October.<br />
70<br />
seven <strong>of</strong> these transects twice in 2001; repeat<br />
visits were two to four months apart (Appendix<br />
I). In 2002 we trapped only at non-r<strong>and</strong>om sites<br />
in areas that we believed would have high species<br />
richness: two sites along Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong> one<br />
site each at Juniper Basin <strong>and</strong> Douglas Springs<br />
(Fig. 6.4). We did not revisit non-r<strong>and</strong>om sites.<br />
Along each focal-point transect we<br />
established three grids (Fig. 6.1) with either a<br />
3x7 or a 5x5 trap configuration (Fig. 6.2). Traps<br />
set in a 3x7 arrangement had 16.7 m spacing<br />
among traps <strong>and</strong> traps in a 5x5 arrangement had<br />
12.5 m spacing among traps. Occasionally we<br />
also placed traps “preferentially,” meaning that<br />
we set traps in locations that the field crews felt<br />
contained areas with high species richness rather<br />
than in grids. Typically these “preferential” sites<br />
were near the r<strong>and</strong>om grids; the crew set out<br />
5 to 70 additional traps after setting up the<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om grids (Figs. 6.3, 6.4). At non-r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
sites the layout <strong>of</strong> traps was variable, but typically<br />
50 m<br />
50 m
Figure 6.3. Locations <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om (focal-point transect) small-mammal trapping sites, pitfall traps for<br />
shrews, <strong>and</strong> bat-trapping stations, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
was in a 5x5 or a 2x10 configuration. The 2x10<br />
configuration was usually along both edges <strong>of</strong> a<br />
wash because we believed that these areas would<br />
host more animals.<br />
Temporal Sampling Design<br />
The total number <strong>of</strong> nights that we trapped each<br />
grid was variable, but was typically two or three<br />
nights per visit (see Appendix I). Occasionally<br />
we trapped for as many as four nights or as few<br />
as one night. Because our goal was to maximize<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>and</strong> species trapped, we<br />
varied the number <strong>of</strong> nights trapped based on the<br />
trapping results in the first few nights <strong>of</strong> trapping;<br />
if we were catching few animals, we moved to a<br />
different location. We always trapped at multiple<br />
plots on the same night to maximize efficiency.<br />
At focal points we always trapped all the grids<br />
71<br />
along the transect on the same nights <strong>and</strong><br />
typically trapped other, nearby non-r<strong>and</strong>om areas.<br />
In some non-r<strong>and</strong>om areas (e.g., Douglas Spring)<br />
we trapped on multiple grids. In this report we<br />
summarize results by “plot group” which is the<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> trapping grids that represent an area.<br />
Effort<br />
We trapped for 4,589 trap-nights (Table 6.1).<br />
We had the most trapping effort in the middleelevation<br />
stratum (2,195 trap nights), less in the<br />
high-elevation stratum (1,390 trap nights), <strong>and</strong><br />
the least in the low-elevation stratum (1,004 trap<br />
nights). In non-r<strong>and</strong>om areas, the percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
the total number <strong>of</strong> trap nights was 36%, 50%,<br />
<strong>and</strong> 37% for the low-, middle-, <strong>and</strong> high-elevation<br />
strata, respectively (Table 6.1).
Figure 6.4. Locations <strong>of</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om small-mammal trapping sites, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Table 6.1. Summary <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. See Appendix I for additional detail.<br />
Elevation stratum Location type Number <strong>of</strong> trapping sites Total trap nights<br />
Low R<strong>and</strong>om 4 721<br />
Non‑r<strong>and</strong>om 3 284<br />
Middle R<strong>and</strong>om 7 1,094<br />
Non‑r<strong>and</strong>om 5 1,102<br />
High R<strong>and</strong>om 5 869<br />
Non‑r<strong>and</strong>om 4 521<br />
Analysis<br />
We expressed effort as the number <strong>of</strong> trap nights<br />
(number <strong>of</strong> traps multiplied by number <strong>of</strong> nights<br />
they were open) after accounting for sprung traps<br />
(misfired or occupied; Beauvais <strong>and</strong> Buskirk<br />
1999). Sprung traps reduce trap effort because<br />
they are no longer “available” to capture animals;<br />
72<br />
we account for this by multiplying the number <strong>of</strong><br />
sprung traps by 0.5 (lacking specific information,<br />
we estimate sprung traps were available for<br />
half <strong>of</strong> the night; Nelson <strong>and</strong> Clark 1973). We<br />
calculated relative abundance for species by<br />
dividing the number <strong>of</strong> captures by the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> trap nights times 100. For this report we
calculated relative abundance by plot group, type<br />
<strong>of</strong> plot (r<strong>and</strong>om or non-r<strong>and</strong>om), <strong>and</strong> visit.<br />
Pitfall Trapping<br />
It is possible that the Arizona shrew (Sorex<br />
arizonae) <strong>and</strong> vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans)<br />
occur in the Rincon Mountains; they have been<br />
found in adjacent mountain ranges in southern<br />
Arizona (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986). Also, pocket<br />
gophers (Thomomys spp.) are very difficult to<br />
capture using Sherman traps. To survey for<br />
shrews <strong>and</strong> pocket gophers we placed pitfall<br />
traps (3-quart buckets [19 cm tall x 14 cm wide])<br />
in moist, north-facing slopes <strong>of</strong> the Rincon<br />
Mountains in 2001. We placed traps adjacent to<br />
a natural feature such as a fallen log or rock. We<br />
attempted to check traps every 10 days to two<br />
weeks.<br />
Effort<br />
We placed traps in three areas: North Slope Trail,<br />
Italian Spring, <strong>and</strong> Spud Rock Spring (Fig. 6.3).<br />
We placed 10 traps (22 May to 24 September) at<br />
the North Slope Trail site, <strong>and</strong> four traps each at<br />
Italian Spring <strong>and</strong> Spud Rock Spring (6 June to<br />
10 October).<br />
Bats<br />
We surveyed for bats using two field methods:<br />
roost-site visits <strong>and</strong> netting. For netting, we<br />
concentrated our survey effort in areas that were<br />
most likely to have bats, mostly riparian areas<br />
with surface water present. We did not survey<br />
for bats near focal points because <strong>of</strong> the low<br />
probability <strong>of</strong> success in these areas.<br />
Roosts<br />
We visited roosts that were known to have bats,<br />
based on historic records, or were likely to have<br />
bats based on habitat characteristics. At roosts,<br />
we observed bats with the aid <strong>of</strong> infrared-filtered<br />
light <strong>and</strong> night-vision equipment or red-filtered<br />
light. When bats were present, we worked<br />
quickly to identify them to species, but if there<br />
were no bats we used bright light, then searched<br />
for <strong>and</strong> collected skeletal material.<br />
Mist Netting<br />
Because most insectivorous bats congregate<br />
at water sites, we selected sites known to have<br />
abundant surface water (Fig. 6.3). At most<br />
sites we set mist nets directly over water <strong>and</strong><br />
varied the number <strong>of</strong> net hours among sites <strong>and</strong><br />
visits depending on field conditions. We used<br />
mon<strong>of</strong>ilament nylon nets <strong>of</strong> three net sizes (5-m,<br />
9-m, or 12-m) depending on the site <strong>and</strong> set nets<br />
singly or stacked, depending on conditions. For<br />
each bat captured, we recorded time <strong>of</strong> capture,<br />
species, <strong>and</strong> sex. When appropriate, we also<br />
recorded reproductive condition, forearm length,<br />
mass, body condition, tooth wear, presence<br />
<strong>of</strong> parasites, <strong>and</strong> other measurements. We<br />
determined whether individuals were adult,<br />
subadult (by closure <strong>of</strong> epiphyses), or juvenile (by<br />
appearance). We estimated age by tooth wear.<br />
For females, we recorded reproductive condition<br />
as pregnant (palpation for fetal bones), currently<br />
lactating (mammary gl<strong>and</strong> with milk), previous<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> lactation (misshapen or scarred<br />
nipples), or nulliparity (non-use <strong>of</strong> nipples). We<br />
determined reproductive condition for males by<br />
the degree <strong>of</strong> swelling <strong>of</strong> testes or the presence <strong>of</strong><br />
black epididymides <strong>and</strong> used this information to<br />
determine if the male was not reproductive, semireproductive,<br />
or reproductive. We marked all<br />
captured bats with a temporary, non-lethal marker<br />
to prevent counting the same individual more<br />
than once in the same evening. We used sonar<br />
detectors (Anabat <strong>and</strong>/or QMC Mini) at all sites<br />
to aid in determining bat presence/absence <strong>and</strong><br />
relative activity as compared to the visual or mistnet<br />
results. We listened passively for the call <strong>of</strong><br />
pallid bats, the only species in the area that can be<br />
definitively identified by its directive call.<br />
Effort<br />
We visited three roosts that were known, or were<br />
likely, to have bats. We netted bats at six sites<br />
for a total <strong>of</strong> 13 nights <strong>of</strong> netting in 2001 <strong>and</strong> four<br />
nights <strong>of</strong> netting in 2002 (Appendix J). Most <strong>of</strong><br />
our netting effort was at lower Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong><br />
at Manning Camp Pond; we netted at each site<br />
for five nights. Deer Creek was the only site at<br />
which we netted on the east slope <strong>of</strong> the Rincon<br />
Mountains.<br />
Analyses<br />
We report the number <strong>of</strong> species <strong>and</strong> individuals<br />
caught by site, but because <strong>of</strong> the extreme<br />
differences in trapping effort among sites we<br />
73
calculated percent netting success (PNS) for<br />
comparisons among sites. We calculated PNS<br />
as the number <strong>of</strong> animals caught divided by<br />
effort (total length <strong>of</strong> net coverage multiplied<br />
by amount <strong>of</strong> time nets were open multiplied<br />
by 100). We do not attempt to present percent<br />
netting success as a measure <strong>of</strong> relative<br />
abundance because netting bats is somewhat a<br />
function <strong>of</strong> chance; many more individuals <strong>and</strong><br />
species can be present in an area than are caught.<br />
Large <strong>and</strong> Medium Mammals<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park initiated a medium <strong>and</strong><br />
large mammal inventory in 1999, prior to the<br />
initiation <strong>of</strong> the UA inventory effort. In addition<br />
to support from the NPS, this inventory effort has<br />
been funded by several small grants to the park,<br />
<strong>and</strong> reports have been generated for each <strong>of</strong> these<br />
projects (Aslan 2000, Wolf <strong>and</strong> Swann 2002,<br />
Swann et al. 2003a, Swann 2003). This report<br />
combines data presented in these previous reports<br />
with new data not previously reported.<br />
Spatial Sampling Design<br />
We used infrared-triggered cameras to detect<br />
medium <strong>and</strong> large mammals at a combination <strong>of</strong><br />
r<strong>and</strong>om <strong>and</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om sites from January 1999<br />
to June 2005 (Figs. 6.5, 6.6). We located nonr<strong>and</strong>om<br />
sites (Fig. 6.5) primarily at known water<br />
sources <strong>and</strong> animal trails. We chose the location<br />
<strong>of</strong> these sites to be in areas that we believed<br />
would have the highest species richness. The<br />
location <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om sites was primarily based on<br />
the r<strong>and</strong>om coordinates chosen as focal points<br />
for the plant <strong>and</strong> animal inventories (see Chapter<br />
1), though many <strong>of</strong> these focal points were not<br />
surveyed for the other taxonomic groups. To<br />
avoid interference with other inventory activities<br />
at sites where there was other inventory work<br />
<strong>and</strong> to maintain consistency among all focal<br />
points, we <strong>of</strong>fset all camera locations from the<br />
focal point by using the same coordinates but<br />
with the NAD 27 map datum instead <strong>of</strong> NAD 83;<br />
this moved the focal points approximately 200<br />
m from the original location. We also generated<br />
additional r<strong>and</strong>om camera locations to increase<br />
sampling in some areas that were not represented<br />
by focal points, particularly at high elevations <strong>and</strong><br />
on the east slope <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains. When<br />
74<br />
possible, we placed three camera units at each<br />
location focal point using the following criteria<br />
(Fig. 6.7):<br />
(1) within 50 m <strong>of</strong> the r<strong>and</strong>om point<br />
(2) at a r<strong>and</strong>om drainage point nearby<br />
(selected either r<strong>and</strong>omly within a 1-km<br />
area; Aslan 2000) or at a r<strong>and</strong>om point<br />
located at the nearest measured point in a<br />
mapped drainage (Wolf <strong>and</strong> Swann 2002,<br />
Swann et al. 2003a), <strong>and</strong><br />
(3) at a non-r<strong>and</strong>om point chosen by the field<br />
technician, usually located between 80<br />
<strong>and</strong> 500 m from the r<strong>and</strong>om point.<br />
Temporal design<br />
We generally returned to each camera one week<br />
after initial setup to check that it was functioning<br />
properly <strong>and</strong> to make repairs <strong>and</strong> change film,<br />
if necessary. We then left the camera in place<br />
for approximately two weeks, though the length<br />
<strong>of</strong> time varied, especially in remote areas that<br />
required long days <strong>of</strong> hiking to reach the camera.<br />
Field methods<br />
We primarily used the Trailmaster camera<br />
system at focal points. The system (model 1500,<br />
Goodson <strong>and</strong> Associates, Inc., Lenaxa, KS;<br />
Kucera <strong>and</strong> Barrett 1993) consists <strong>of</strong> a transmitter<br />
that emits an infrared beam, a receiver that<br />
detects the beam, <strong>and</strong> a camera that is connected<br />
to the receiver with a cable (Fig. 6.8). The<br />
receiver triggers the camera to take a picture<br />
when an animal breaks the beam. At all nonr<strong>and</strong>om<br />
sites, <strong>and</strong> occasionally at focal points,<br />
we also used the DeerCam (model DC-100, Nontypical,<br />
Inc., Park Falls, WI) <strong>and</strong> the Trailmaster<br />
500 <strong>and</strong> 1550 models. Because they have<br />
identical functions, we do not further differentiate<br />
equipment we used.<br />
We baited each focal-point camera using<br />
a fish-based canned catfood <strong>and</strong> a commercial<br />
trapping lure that attracted predators. Generally,<br />
we baited with catfood the first week, then the<br />
trapping lure the second week, but for high-<br />
elevation surveys in 1999 we r<strong>and</strong>omly selected<br />
only one bait <strong>and</strong> used it for two weeks. We<br />
occasionally baited non-r<strong>and</strong>om sites. For visitor<br />
safety reasons, we did not locate baited stations<br />
within 200 m <strong>of</strong> a trail.
Figure 6.5. Locations <strong>of</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om infrared-triggered cameras, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2000-2005.<br />
Effort<br />
We placed cameras at 74 non-r<strong>and</strong>om <strong>and</strong> 40<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om sites throughout the district (Appendix K;<br />
Figs. 6.5, 6.6). At focal points we had 24 points<br />
with three cameras, 13 points with two cameras,<br />
<strong>and</strong> three points with one camera (Appendix K;<br />
see Spatial Sampling Design section above for<br />
more information). Considering both types <strong>of</strong><br />
camera locations (r<strong>and</strong>om <strong>and</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om), we<br />
placed most cameras in the low-elevation stratum<br />
(54%; Table 6.2). Twenty eight percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cameras were in the middle-elevation stratum,<br />
<strong>and</strong> 18% were in the high-elevation stratum.<br />
The total number <strong>of</strong> camera nights at all sites<br />
75<br />
was 3,895 <strong>and</strong> the percent <strong>of</strong> camera nights, by<br />
elevation stratum, was higher in the low-elevation<br />
stratum <strong>and</strong> lower in the other strata: 69%, 18%,<br />
<strong>and</strong> 13% in the low-, middle-, <strong>and</strong> high-elevation<br />
strata, respectively (Table 6.2).<br />
Analysis<br />
We analyzed all photos <strong>and</strong> identified the<br />
animal(s) present. We excluded from analysis<br />
all non-mammals (birds, reptiles, <strong>and</strong> blank<br />
pictures), unknowns that could not be identified<br />
to genus, humans, horses with riders, <strong>and</strong><br />
nocturnal rodents (mostly woodrats). A<br />
few species pairs (black-tailed <strong>and</strong> antelope<br />
jackrabbits, hooded <strong>and</strong> striped skunks, <strong>and</strong>
Figure 6.6. Locations <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om infrared-triggered cameras, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 2000-2005.<br />
Figure 6.7. Example <strong>of</strong> three-camera placement at one <strong>of</strong> the r<strong>and</strong>om points, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Location “R” is the r<strong>and</strong>om point, “D” is at the nearest mapped drainage to the<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om point, <strong>and</strong> “A” is a point chosen by the technician (in this case a natural water hole).<br />
76
(2) Receiver<br />
triggers<br />
camera to<br />
take picture<br />
Camera<br />
Receiver<br />
white-tailed <strong>and</strong> mule deer) are difficult to<br />
distinguish under poor light conditions or if<br />
only part <strong>of</strong> the animal is visible; for these we<br />
made the best possible attempt to distinguish<br />
them, <strong>and</strong> sometimes identified the individual<br />
to genus only.<br />
We entered these <strong>and</strong> other data<br />
(species, number <strong>of</strong> individuals, film number,<br />
location, date, time if available, bait, etc.)<br />
into an Access database. For each r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
area <strong>and</strong> for each point we summarized the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> species <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />
photographed. To create species distribution<br />
maps, we converted UTM coordinates to NAD<br />
83 datum <strong>and</strong> imported them into ArcView.<br />
Comparing species abundance <strong>and</strong><br />
presence among locations using infraredtriggered<br />
photography is problematic. As<br />
with all methods, animals may not be detected<br />
because they are absent, or because they were<br />
present <strong>and</strong> not detected. In addition, rates<br />
<strong>of</strong> detection undoubtedly vary greatly among<br />
species. Determining relative abundance can<br />
also be difficult. Infrared-triggered camera<br />
units <strong>of</strong>ten do not operate continuously<br />
between the time they are set <strong>and</strong> when they<br />
are next checked because the roll <strong>of</strong> film may<br />
be entirely exposed, or because the unit may<br />
fail due to technical problems or field errors.<br />
To estimate rates <strong>of</strong> detection based on effort,<br />
we used dates on photographs to determine as<br />
closely as possible how many days a camera<br />
unit was operating for each roll <strong>of</strong> film, then<br />
summed the number <strong>of</strong> operational days at<br />
each location. Where dates were not available<br />
for a roll <strong>of</strong> film, we substituted the mean<br />
number <strong>of</strong> days it took to fill a 36-exposure roll<br />
<strong>of</strong> film (11.8 days).<br />
We compared species richness among<br />
the three elevation strata <strong>and</strong> between r<strong>and</strong>om<br />
77<br />
Infrared beam<br />
Transmitter<br />
(1) Animal blocks infrared<br />
beam from getting to receiver<br />
Figure 6.8. Typical configuration for an active infrared-triggered camera system. Image based on Swann<br />
et al. (2004).<br />
Table 6.2. Summary <strong>of</strong> infrared-triggered camera effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 1999–2005. See Appendix K for more complete summary.<br />
P= Number <strong>of</strong> camera nights<br />
Location type Elevation stratum Number <strong>of</strong> cameras Sum Mean SD<br />
Non‑r<strong>and</strong>om Low 58 2162 37 40.4<br />
Middle 5 200 40 33.6<br />
High 11 294 27 18.8<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om Low 36 515 14 5.9<br />
Middle 44 523 12 8.2<br />
High 21 201 10 6.1
<strong>and</strong> non-r<strong>and</strong>om camera areas using one-way<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> variance. Because cameras were open<br />
for differing lengths <strong>of</strong> time (Appendix K), we<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ardized effort for each camera by dividing<br />
observed species richness by the number <strong>of</strong> days<br />
that a camera was open. We then log-transformed<br />
these data to meet assumptions <strong>of</strong> normality. At<br />
r<strong>and</strong>om sites, we tested for differences in species<br />
richness among strata <strong>and</strong> type <strong>of</strong> camera (e.g.,<br />
directly on r<strong>and</strong>om point, in nearest mapped<br />
drainage, <strong>and</strong> at site chosen by field personnel)<br />
using one-way analysis <strong>of</strong> variance.<br />
Results<br />
Species Richness<br />
We confirmed a total <strong>of</strong> 59 species <strong>of</strong> mammals<br />
in the Rincon Mountain District (Appendix D).<br />
This included 12 species confirmed through<br />
specimens, 32 species confirmed through<br />
photographs, nine species captured for which<br />
a voucher specimen previously existed, five<br />
species confirmed through a combination <strong>of</strong><br />
voucher specimens <strong>and</strong> photos, <strong>and</strong> one species<br />
confirmed through reliable observation. One<br />
species included in this total (eastern cottontail)<br />
was confirmed by photographs in appropriate<br />
high-elevation habitat, but requires further<br />
documentation. We confirmed three species<br />
<strong>of</strong> mammals not previously confirmed for the<br />
district: western red bat, fulvous harvest mouse,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Virginia opossum. The latter two species<br />
represent significant range extensions. We<br />
observed only one species listed by the U.S. Fish<br />
<strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service as endangered, the southern<br />
long-nosed bat. Three species <strong>of</strong> non-native<br />
animals were documented for the district (feral<br />
cat, domestic dog, <strong>and</strong> domestic cattle) but we<br />
do not believe that any <strong>of</strong> these species have<br />
established feral populations in the district.<br />
There have been a total <strong>of</strong> 66 species<br />
observed or documented in the district in the last<br />
few decades based on this <strong>and</strong> previous studies<br />
(Appendix D). We did not document the presence<br />
<strong>of</strong> 11 species that were previously documented<br />
for the Rincon Mountain District. We did not<br />
confirm the deer mouse, captured in the early<br />
1950s near Manning Camp (Appendix F). We<br />
78<br />
did not confirm the banner-tailed kangaroo rat<br />
(Dipodomys specatabilis), previously confirmed<br />
by specimen voucher (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986), <strong>and</strong><br />
did not observe any <strong>of</strong> the distinctive sign <strong>of</strong> this<br />
very large kangaroo rat. Three species <strong>of</strong> bats<br />
that we did not observe, the western small-footed<br />
myotis, Yuma myotis, <strong>and</strong> western pipistrelle,<br />
have been confirmed recently (Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner<br />
1992; Sidner 2003) <strong>and</strong> undoubtedly still occur<br />
at the district. One species <strong>of</strong> rodent (southern<br />
grasshopper mouse) is also present; a roadkilled<br />
individual found by Don Swann in 1997 was<br />
confirmed by Yar Petryzyn at the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona mammal collection. Four species are<br />
extirpated from the district (grizzly bear [Ursus<br />
arctos], jaguar [Panthera onca], Mexican gray<br />
wolf [Canis lupus], <strong>and</strong> bighorn sheep [Ovis<br />
canadensis]), <strong>and</strong> a fifth species (North American<br />
porcupine) may be extirpated, though it remains<br />
on the species list.<br />
Small Mammals<br />
We trapped 544 individual rodents (including<br />
recaptures) in 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002, <strong>and</strong> documented<br />
13 species through our trapping effort, as well as<br />
three species <strong>of</strong> diurnal squirrels (Table 6.3). One<br />
species, the fulvous harvest mouse (4 captures)<br />
was a new species for the district. We did not<br />
capture two species that have been previously<br />
documented for the district (the southern<br />
grasshopper mouse <strong>and</strong> banner-tailed kangaroo<br />
rat).<br />
Small mammal species richness was<br />
highest in the middle-elevation stratum (Table<br />
6.3), though sampling effort was also greater<br />
in that stratum. Therefore, after accounting for<br />
differences in sampling effort, species richness<br />
did not vary among strata (F 2,35 = 0.16, P =<br />
0.86, one-way ANOVA, log-transformed data).<br />
Species richness was higher on non-r<strong>and</strong>om plots<br />
than on r<strong>and</strong>om plots in all strata (Table 6.3).<br />
At both high- <strong>and</strong> low-elevation strata, relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> all rodents combined was higher<br />
on non-r<strong>and</strong>om plots than on r<strong>and</strong>om plots, but at<br />
middle elevations, relative abundance was higher<br />
on r<strong>and</strong>om plots (Table 6.3). In general, relative<br />
abundance was higher at both low <strong>and</strong> high<br />
elevations than at middle elevations.
Excluding the results for the whitethroated<br />
wood rat, whose identification may have<br />
been confused with the Mexican woodrat in some<br />
instances, there were important patterns among<br />
strata (Table 6.3). In particular, we trapped only<br />
one species (rock squirrel) in a single-elevation<br />
stratum, <strong>and</strong> only one species (brush mouse) in<br />
all three strata. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the species we<br />
found in two strata, either in the low- <strong>and</strong> middle-<br />
or the middle- <strong>and</strong> high-elevation strata. We<br />
trapped no species solely in the middle-elevation<br />
stratum.<br />
Bats<br />
We confirmed 15 species, including one species<br />
that was not previously found at the district<br />
(western red bat; Table 6.4, Appendix D). We<br />
observed bats in only one roost site, where 500-<br />
1000 cave myotis <strong>and</strong> six southern long-nosed<br />
bats were found. This was the only site at which<br />
we confirmed the southern long-nosed bat.<br />
Lower Rincon Creek had the highest<br />
species richness <strong>of</strong> any site, <strong>and</strong> Manning Camp<br />
had the highest percent netting success <strong>and</strong><br />
the most individuals captured (Table 6.4). We<br />
captured five species at Lower Rincon Creek<br />
that we did not capture in any other site <strong>and</strong> one<br />
79<br />
species at Manning Camp Pond that we did not<br />
capture at any other site. At no other site did we<br />
capture species that were not found elsewhere.<br />
Wild Horse Canyon was the least productive<br />
site; we only caught one bat in three consecutive<br />
nights <strong>of</strong> trapping there. Three nights <strong>of</strong> netting<br />
were the most productive for species richness<br />
– two at Lower Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong> one at<br />
Manning Camp Pond – during this time we found<br />
seven species. There were extreme differences<br />
in the number <strong>of</strong> individuals caught <strong>and</strong> species<br />
richness within sites, particularly for Lower<br />
Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong> Manning Camp Pond, the two<br />
most sampled sites. At Lower Rincon Creek, the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> bats captured ranged from zero to 16<br />
<strong>and</strong> species richness ranged from zero to seven.<br />
Similar differences were observed for Manning<br />
Camp Pond.<br />
The big brown bat was the most<br />
widespread <strong>and</strong> abundant species; it was found<br />
at five <strong>of</strong> the six sites <strong>and</strong> in all elevation strata<br />
(Table 6.4). Big brown bats were captured in<br />
80% <strong>of</strong> the visits to Lower Rincon Creek <strong>and</strong><br />
Manning Camp Pond. The Brazilian free-tailed<br />
bat was the next most-captured bat; we captured<br />
16 individuals at three sites. Of the 14 species<br />
that we captured at the Rincon Mountain District,<br />
10 were represented by four or fewer individuals.<br />
Table 6.3. Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> small mammals by strata <strong>and</strong> site type (R = r<strong>and</strong>om [focal-point<br />
transects]; NR = non-r<strong>and</strong>om), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. See<br />
Appendix I for summary <strong>of</strong> trapping effort.<br />
Low Middle High<br />
Species R NR R NR R NR<br />
rock squirrel 0.2<br />
cliff chipmunk 0.2 2.2 3.5<br />
Abert’s squirrel 0.2<br />
Sonoran Desert pocket mouse 14.8<br />
rock pocket mouse 3.9 5.4 2.5<br />
Bailey’s pocket mouse 0.3 0.3 2.5<br />
Merriam’s kangaroo rat 0.4 7.3<br />
western harvest mouse 0.2 0.4<br />
fulvous harvest mouse 1.4<br />
cactus mouse 0.8 4.2 1.2 0.4<br />
brush mouse 0.3 2.8 1.9 2.6 5.0 11.9<br />
western white‑throated woodrat 1.9 2.8 2.3 0.5 0.2 a 4.0 a<br />
Mexican woodrat 0.2 1.7 1.3<br />
yellow‑nosed cotton rat 0.6 0.8<br />
Arizona cotton rat 0.7 0.2<br />
Species richness 5 7 7 9 5 8<br />
a Identification at high elevations was not certain <strong>and</strong> further trapping is required to confirm this species.
Table 6.4. Results <strong>of</strong> netting for bats, by elevation strata, site, <strong>and</strong> visit, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Low Middle High<br />
Chimenea<br />
Wild Horse Deer<br />
Devil’s<br />
Creek Lower Rincon Creek<br />
Canyon Creek Manning Camp Pond Bathtub<br />
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 1<br />
Mexican long‑tongued bat 1<br />
unknown myotis 1 1<br />
southwestern myotis 2 1 1<br />
cave myotis 1 1 1<br />
fringed myotis 1 1<br />
long‑legged myotis 1 2<br />
California myotis 2 1 1 3 1<br />
silver‑haired bat 1 2 1<br />
big brown bat 4 4 2 2 2 2 5 10 19 4 1<br />
western red bat 1<br />
hoary bat 1 2 2 1 1<br />
Townsend’s big‑eared bat 1<br />
pallid bat 1<br />
Brazilian free‑tailed bat 8 2 1 1 3 1<br />
pocketed free‑tailed bat 1 1<br />
total detections by visit 2 4 16 4 0 8 9 0 1 0 7 1 12 17 21 5 3<br />
total detections by site 6 37 1 7 56 3<br />
percent netting success 3.4 7.1 0.4 7.4 19.1 11.1<br />
species richness by site 2 12 1 3 7 3<br />
Even the cave myotis, for which we found a roost<br />
<strong>of</strong> >500 individuals, was represented by only a<br />
few individuals captured by netting.<br />
Medium <strong>and</strong> Large Mammals<br />
In 3,895 estimated camera nights, 2,939<br />
photographs captured at least one mammal (not<br />
including nocturnal rodents, people, <strong>and</strong> horses<br />
with riders) <strong>and</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 3,407 individual<br />
mammals that could be identified to genus. We<br />
photographed 27 species, including two nonnative<br />
species, domestic dog <strong>and</strong> cattle (Table<br />
6.5, Appendix D). We documented one species<br />
(Virginia opossum) not previously reported<br />
for the district <strong>and</strong> a large number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
for which there had previously been only<br />
observational records.<br />
The largest number <strong>of</strong> photographs<br />
was <strong>of</strong> the gray fox (1018 photos), followed<br />
by collared peccary (588 photos), <strong>and</strong> ringtail<br />
(229 photos). Species richness among elevation<br />
strata was highest in the low elevation (n = 24)<br />
<strong>and</strong> progressively lower through the elevation<br />
strata (n = 15, 13 at medium- <strong>and</strong> high-elevation<br />
stratum, respectively; Table 6.5), though effort<br />
80<br />
was disproportionate in the low-elevation stratum<br />
(Table 6.2). After accounting for camera effort,<br />
there was no difference in species richness among<br />
strata (F 2,170 = 2.0, P = 0.13, one-way ANOVA<br />
on log-transformed data), but r<strong>and</strong>om cameras<br />
did have slightly higher species richness than<br />
non-r<strong>and</strong>om camera sites (t 173 = 3.0, P = 0.003,<br />
two-tailed t-test). Among r<strong>and</strong>om sites where we<br />
placed three cameras, there were no differences<br />
in species richness among strata (F 2,67 = 1.5, P =<br />
0.23, one-way ANOVA on log-transformed data),<br />
<strong>and</strong> within these sites there were no differences<br />
among the type <strong>of</strong> camera placement (at the<br />
focal-point transects; F 2,67 = 1.1, P = 0.34, oneway<br />
ANOVA on log-transformed data).<br />
Pitfall Trapping<br />
We trapped eight animals in pitfall traps: six<br />
desert shrews at the North Slope site, one western<br />
harvest mouse, <strong>and</strong> one Botta’s pocket gopher<br />
at Italian Spring. We trapped no animals at<br />
Spud Rock Spring. In this report we assume<br />
the desert shrews we captured during this study<br />
are Crawford’s desert shrew, but further genetic<br />
work would be necessary to confirm that it is this
Table 6.5. Number <strong>of</strong> photographs <strong>of</strong> mammals from infrared-triggered photography by elevation strata,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 1999–2005. “Abundance” equals the number <strong>of</strong> photographs<br />
<strong>of</strong> that species per estimated number <strong>of</strong> working camera‑nights. Does not include individuals that could be<br />
identified to genus but not species (e.g., some photos <strong>of</strong> deer, skunks, rabbits, <strong>and</strong> squirrels).<br />
Relative<br />
Relative<br />
Relative<br />
No. photos abundance No. photos abundance No. photos abundance<br />
Virginia opossum 2 0.1<br />
American black bear 2 0.1 21 2.9 10 2.0<br />
white‑nosed coati 17 0.6 8 1.1 3 0.6<br />
ringtail 142 5.3 78 10.8 9 1.8<br />
common raccoon 5 0.2<br />
striped skunk 134 5.0 21 2.9 7 1.4<br />
hooded skunk 160 6.0 20 2.8 2 0.4<br />
white‑backed hog‑nosed skunk 20 0.7 4 0.6 3 0.6<br />
western spotted skunk 3 0.1 3 0.4<br />
coyote 97 3.6<br />
domestic dog 2 0.1<br />
common gray fox 602 22.6 283 39.3 133 27.0<br />
mountain lion 46 1.7 16 2.2 11 2.2<br />
bobcat 50 1.9 2 0.3 4 0.8<br />
round‑tailed ground squirrel 1 0.0<br />
rock squirrel 13 0.5 3 0.4<br />
Harris’ antelope squirrel 7 0.3<br />
Abert’s squirrel 8 1.6<br />
Arizona gray squirrel 2 0.3 1 0.2<br />
antelope jackrabbit 7 0.3<br />
black‑tailed jackrabbit 10 0.4<br />
desert cottontail 48 1.8 3 0.4<br />
eastern cottontail 3 0.6<br />
domestic cattle 3 0.1<br />
collared peccary 561 21.0 27 3.8<br />
mule deer 28 1.0<br />
white‑tailed deer 104 3.9 23 3.2 63 12.8<br />
Total photographs 2064 0.81 514 0.73 257 0.53<br />
Species richness 24 15 13<br />
species <strong>and</strong> not Cockrum’s desert shrew; both<br />
species potentially occur in the Rincon Mountains<br />
(Baker et al. 2003b).<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> Completeness<br />
We confirmed a total <strong>of</strong> 59 species <strong>of</strong> mammals<br />
in the Rincon Mountain District <strong>and</strong> failed to<br />
confirm 11 species that have been previously<br />
documented for the Rincon Mountains. Of these<br />
11, four species (grizzly bear, jaguar, Mexican<br />
gray wolf, <strong>and</strong> bighorn sheep) are certainly<br />
extirpated from the district <strong>and</strong> two others<br />
(deer mice, North American porcupine, <strong>and</strong><br />
banner-tailed kangaroo rat) may be extirpated.<br />
We believe that three species <strong>of</strong> bats <strong>and</strong> one<br />
Low Middle High<br />
81<br />
rodent that were documented in the past are still<br />
present <strong>and</strong> would be confirmed with additional<br />
effort. Based on these records, if we assume that<br />
four species still present went undetected, our<br />
inventory confirmed 93% <strong>of</strong> mammals known for<br />
the district. The species accumulation curves for<br />
small mammal trapping (Fig. 6.9) <strong>and</strong> bats (Fig.<br />
6.10) as well as for infrared-triggered cameras<br />
(Fig. 6.11) also suggest that our inventory was<br />
fairly complete. These results make this effort<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the most comprehensive <strong>of</strong> its kind in<br />
the region for mammals. The infrared-triggered<br />
effort, in particular, is unprecedented.<br />
The three “new” species reported during<br />
this study may not have been observed before<br />
simply due to lack <strong>of</strong> survey effort. This situation
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16<br />
Sampling period<br />
82<br />
Low elevation<br />
Middle elevation<br />
High elevation<br />
Figure 6.9. Species accumulation curve for small-mammal trapping by elevation stratum, <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Each sampling period represents 10 observations<br />
(excluding recaptures).<br />
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14<br />
Sampling period<br />
Figure 6.10. Species accumulation curve for bat trapping, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. Each sampling period represents one night <strong>of</strong> netting.
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
Cumulative number <strong>of</strong> species<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
seems unlikely in the case <strong>of</strong> the Virginia<br />
opossum, which has been extending its range<br />
northward; the record from this study represents<br />
a significant range extension (Babb et al. 2004).<br />
The red bat <strong>and</strong> fulvous harvest mouse were both<br />
found only along Rincon Creek, in the expansion<br />
area that was added to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
during the 1990s. The red bat is a riparian<br />
obligate species <strong>and</strong> may occur in the district only<br />
in this area. Less is known about the fulvous<br />
Sample period<br />
Sample period<br />
harvest mouse, but the finding <strong>of</strong> this species in<br />
the district is noteworthy.<br />
Additional inventory work could also<br />
increase the number <strong>of</strong> bat species detected. In<br />
total, 18 bat species have been confirmed for the<br />
Rincon Mountain District. Ronnie Sidner, who<br />
collected data for this effort <strong>and</strong> is a regional<br />
expert on the distribution <strong>and</strong> ecology <strong>of</strong> bats,<br />
believes that an additional four species could be<br />
found with additional survey effort: California<br />
83<br />
Middle Elevation<br />
High Elevation<br />
Low elevation<br />
5<br />
0 10 20 30 40<br />
Figure 6.11. Species accumulation curve for infrared-triggered cameras, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District, 1999-2005. Each sample period for the low‑elevation stratum represents a<br />
r<strong>and</strong>omized combination <strong>of</strong> 50 observations. Each sample period for medium‑ <strong>and</strong> high‑elevation strata<br />
represents 20 observations.
leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), western<br />
mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), little brown bat<br />
(Myotis lucifugus), <strong>and</strong> western yellow bat<br />
(Lasiurus xanthinus).<br />
Discussion<br />
Biogeography<br />
As noted in the other chapters, the biology <strong>of</strong><br />
the district reflects a fascinating geography. The<br />
district is located within two major watersheds,<br />
the Santa Cruz River on the west side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Rincons <strong>and</strong> the San Pedro River on the east<br />
side. More importantly, the Rincon Mountains<br />
contain elements <strong>of</strong> several major biogeographic<br />
provinces, including the Sonoran Desert to the<br />
south <strong>and</strong> west, the Rocky Mountain region to<br />
the north <strong>and</strong> east, the Chihuahuan Desert to<br />
the east, <strong>and</strong> the Madrean region to the south.<br />
The Rincon Mountain District also hosts a<br />
significant elevational range, from 814 m (2,670<br />
ft) to 2,641 (8,665 ft), <strong>and</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> different<br />
plant communities. As a result, the district<br />
contains mammals that represent several different<br />
biogeographic origins, including a large number<br />
<strong>of</strong> species not present in the Tucson Mountain<br />
District. Thus, the Rincon Mountain District’s<br />
mammals include classic Sonoran Desert species<br />
(e.g., the round-tailed ground squirrel); species<br />
strongly associated with the Madrean region<br />
<strong>and</strong> central America (e.g., the white-nosed coati,<br />
collared peccary, <strong>and</strong> southern long-nosed bat);<br />
“northern” species (e.g., the American black bear<br />
<strong>and</strong> northern raccoon); <strong>and</strong> typically western<br />
species (e.g., the Botta’s pocket gopher <strong>and</strong><br />
American badger).<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> species, particularly bats<br />
<strong>and</strong> rodents, are on the edge <strong>of</strong> their range in<br />
the district. Our documentation <strong>of</strong> the fulvous<br />
harvest mouse is the furthest northwest location<br />
ever recorded for this species (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister<br />
1986). Similarly, the Rincon-Catalina complex<br />
represents the northwestern-most site for the<br />
yellow-nosed cotton rat <strong>and</strong> the northeastern-<br />
most site for the Arizona pocket mouse. In<br />
contrast, several species we did not capture<br />
are found just southeast <strong>of</strong> the district in the<br />
Santa Rita Mountains <strong>and</strong> nearby sky isl<strong>and</strong><br />
84<br />
mountain ranges including the pygmy mouse<br />
(Baiomys taylori), fulvous cotton rat (Sigmodon<br />
fulviventor), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus<br />
hispidus), <strong>and</strong> others (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986). It is<br />
possible that with more intensive effort these<br />
species might be found in the district. Indeed,<br />
Davis <strong>and</strong> Dunford (1987) suggest that the<br />
yellow-nosed cotton rat has only recently<br />
migrated into the Rincon Mountains. Lowe<br />
(1992) <strong>and</strong> Swann et al. (2005) have discussed<br />
the biogeography <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians in<br />
the Rincon Mountains <strong>and</strong> factors that possibly<br />
influence distribution; it seems possible that these<br />
same patterns occur for smaller mammals as well.<br />
Habitat Associations<br />
Despite its close proximity to Tucson, the district<br />
has had only a few mammal studies. Our study<br />
represents the first comprehensive inventory <strong>of</strong><br />
the district below the high country (which was<br />
studied by Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner 1992), <strong>and</strong> the first<br />
to quantify relative abundance <strong>and</strong> distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> species. We trust that it will provide a good<br />
baseline for evaluating future changes in the<br />
mammal community at the district.<br />
Our study indicates that the Rincon<br />
Mountains have a typical assemblage <strong>of</strong> other<br />
sky isl<strong>and</strong> mountain ranges, with the exception<br />
<strong>of</strong> some semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong> species <strong>and</strong><br />
the addition <strong>of</strong> a strong desert component. It<br />
is noteworthy that species richness for small<br />
mammals was similar between middle <strong>and</strong> high<br />
elevations. Overall, species richness was highest<br />
at the lowest elevations <strong>and</strong> decreased at higher<br />
elevations. There is a strong desert component<br />
in the mammalian community <strong>of</strong> the district,<br />
with a large number <strong>of</strong> species, ranging from<br />
the Sonoran Desert pocket mouse to mule deer,<br />
found only at lower elevations. However, a few<br />
species such as the Abert’s squirrel <strong>and</strong> Mexican<br />
woodrat were found only at high elevations. The<br />
middle elevations are richest overall, containing<br />
components <strong>of</strong> both deserts <strong>and</strong> forests.<br />
We did not attempt to separate riparian<br />
from upl<strong>and</strong> species richness in this study.<br />
However, as would be expected, wet riparian<br />
areas at all elevations st<strong>and</strong> out as hotspots <strong>of</strong><br />
mammal diversity. Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner (1992)
point out that the pond at Manning Camp has<br />
a remarkable diversity <strong>of</strong> bats. Davis <strong>and</strong><br />
Sidner captured 12 species in just a few nights,<br />
compared to 12 species over many years <strong>of</strong><br />
intensive netting at the Southwestern Research<br />
Station pond in Portal, Arizona, <strong>and</strong> nine species<br />
over many years at Quitobaquito Pond in Organ<br />
Pipe Cactus National Monument. Our netting<br />
results supported this statement; we recorded<br />
extraordinary species richness at both Manning<br />
Camp Pond <strong>and</strong> Rincon Creek (Table 6.4)<br />
Twenty-nine species <strong>of</strong> terrestrial mammals have<br />
now been documented at the Madrona Pools area<br />
<strong>of</strong> Chimenea Creek, <strong>and</strong> Sidner (2003) noted that<br />
a remarkable total <strong>of</strong> 17 species <strong>of</strong> bats have now<br />
been recorded along Chimenea Creek.<br />
Differences in habitat associations among<br />
species are similar to previous studies in the<br />
region. As in the Huachuca Mountains, the brush<br />
mouse is the most common small mammal in<br />
brushy <strong>and</strong> wooded vegetation above semi-desert<br />
grassl<strong>and</strong>s (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister <strong>and</strong> Goodpaster 1954).<br />
As previously described in collections made<br />
by Huey in 1932, Collins in 1954, <strong>and</strong> Davis<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sidner in 1984 <strong>and</strong> 1985 (Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner<br />
1992), the brush mouse appears to be the only<br />
species <strong>of</strong> Peromyscus known to occur in the high<br />
country <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains. However it is<br />
unclear if the deer mouse occurs in the Rincons.<br />
The yellow-nosed cotton rat was first documented<br />
in the district in 1984 in Manning Camp Meadow<br />
(Sidner <strong>and</strong> Davis 1994) <strong>and</strong> according to Davis<br />
<strong>and</strong> Dunford (1987) has recently colonized<br />
isolated montane grassl<strong>and</strong>s in southern Arizona<br />
over the last 60 years. Although not previously<br />
known above 1,860 m (Cockrum 1960) or oak<br />
woodl<strong>and</strong> (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986), these cotton rats<br />
now inhabit montane meadows in southeast<br />
Arizona where the longtail vole (Microtus<br />
longicaudus) is absent (Davis <strong>and</strong> Ward 1988).<br />
This is the case in the Rincon Mountains.<br />
We found the yellow-nosed cotton rat to be<br />
uncommon in montane meadows <strong>and</strong> adjacent<br />
pine forest in 2001; accurate assessment <strong>of</strong> their<br />
status would require a more focused multi-year<br />
study. The two lower-elevation records we<br />
obtained constitute the first documentation <strong>of</strong><br />
their occurrence in more typical oak woodl<strong>and</strong>/<br />
grassl<strong>and</strong> habitat.<br />
85<br />
The Mexican woodrat is perhaps more<br />
common in the Rincon Mountains than previously<br />
thought. Only four localities were previously<br />
known: Spud Rock Cabin, documented in 1932;<br />
Happy Valley Saddle, documented in 1968;<br />
Manning Camp Meadow, documented in 1984<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1985; <strong>and</strong> Spud Rock Summit documented in<br />
1985 (Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner 1992). In 2001 we found<br />
this species near Mica Meadow, at <strong>and</strong> around<br />
Italian Spring, <strong>and</strong> east <strong>of</strong> Happy Valley Lookout.<br />
We found the western white-throated woodrat<br />
at all elevation strata, which is unusual because<br />
it is generally found below the conifer belt<br />
(H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986). We believe this discrepancy<br />
may have been an artifact <strong>of</strong> poor identification<br />
by our field crews rather than a shift in habitat for<br />
this species.<br />
Changes in the Mammal Community<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the patterns in distribution <strong>and</strong><br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> mammals observed during this<br />
study contrast with historic records <strong>of</strong> mammals<br />
at the district. There is strong evidence that<br />
major changes have occurred in the mammal<br />
community <strong>of</strong> the district during the past seven<br />
decades, although lack <strong>of</strong> data precludes a full<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> them. The greatest apparent<br />
changes since the park’s establishment include<br />
the extirpation <strong>of</strong> several large mammals,<br />
population increases for some other species, <strong>and</strong><br />
significant changes in distribution <strong>of</strong> deer <strong>and</strong><br />
(probably) some small mammals. Some <strong>of</strong> these<br />
changes are well-documented (e.g., we know a<br />
great deal about deer because <strong>of</strong> Sumner’s [1951]<br />
work <strong>and</strong> other records), but most others are not.<br />
The reasons for these changes are not at all clear,<br />
but there is some evidence for why they may<br />
have occurred.<br />
Of the extirpated species, the Mexican<br />
gray wolf <strong>and</strong> bighorn sheep appear to have been<br />
established at the time <strong>of</strong> the park’s creation<br />
(1933), though they were not common. In<br />
subsequent decades they slowly disappeared.<br />
The Mexican gray wolf was likely extirpated<br />
due to predator control programs, which were<br />
implemented throughout the southwestern United<br />
States. To its credit, the NPS made an effort to
keep predator-control activities out <strong>of</strong> the district<br />
during the 1930s <strong>and</strong> 1940s, but it is possible<br />
that bounty hunters entered the district anyway<br />
(<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP, unpubl. records). Ironically, the<br />
effort to keep bounty hunters out <strong>of</strong> the district<br />
was led by Don Egermayer, the park custodian;<br />
but Egermayer himself shot a wolf on the X-9<br />
Ranch in 1947 (<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP, unpubl. records).<br />
Bighorn sheep occurred in the district<br />
through the 1940’s (Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner 1992). A<br />
herd <strong>of</strong> 14 were observed south <strong>of</strong> Rincon Peak<br />
in 1942 (Coss 1969), <strong>and</strong> a weathered horn was<br />
collected on Tanque Verde Ridge in 1957. This<br />
species may have been eliminated by illegal<br />
hunting, although there may have been other<br />
factors as well.<br />
At least two, <strong>and</strong> probably five, jaguars<br />
were shot in the Rincon Mountains (in 1902,<br />
1912, 1920, <strong>and</strong> two in 1932) prior to the<br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> the park (Girmendonk 1994;<br />
Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner 1992; specimen records<br />
in Appendix F), <strong>and</strong> there were occasional<br />
sightings <strong>of</strong> this species in the park’s early years.<br />
Currently, there are several jaguars known to<br />
be resident in southern Arizona, close to the<br />
Mexican border (Jack Childs, pers. comm.). We<br />
attempted to photograph jaguars during this<br />
study, placing cameras at high elevations along<br />
game trails where cat scat <strong>and</strong> scrapes were<br />
found, but obtained no photographs <strong>and</strong> found no<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> this species. Although grizzly bears<br />
were once present in the Rincons, it is doubtful<br />
that any were present by the time the park<br />
was established; the last record for the Rincon<br />
Mountains was in 1921 (cited in Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner<br />
1992). Both jaguars <strong>and</strong> grizzly bears would<br />
have been hunted aggressively well before the<br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> the park.<br />
The last known sighting <strong>of</strong> a North<br />
American porcupine was near Juniper Basin in<br />
the mid-1990s by District Ranger Bob Lineback.<br />
We made a concerted effort to search for this<br />
species during this study, but with no success.<br />
Porcupines appear to be declining throughout<br />
southern Arizona, possibly due to habitat<br />
changes, although Harley Shaw (pers. comm.) has<br />
suggested that it is due to the large increase in the<br />
population <strong>of</strong> mountain lions.<br />
86<br />
While hunting <strong>and</strong> range-wide factors<br />
appear to be important in the loss <strong>of</strong> some<br />
species, significant changes in habitat for<br />
mammals at lower elevations, as well as habitat<br />
loss, may be responsible for other changes in the<br />
mammal community. Habitat changes include<br />
the large increase in shrubs <strong>and</strong> forbs since the<br />
cessation <strong>of</strong> grazing at the district. Active fire<br />
suppression <strong>and</strong> drought may have also played<br />
important roles in the increase <strong>of</strong> woody shrubs<br />
(Brown 1994, Bahre 1995, Van Auken 2000),<br />
particularly in the middle-elevation areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
district. Habitat loss includes the significant<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> open space outside the district due<br />
to residential <strong>and</strong> commercial development,<br />
which has reduced low-lying desert habitat to a<br />
relatively thin strip along the west <strong>and</strong> south sides<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains (see Chapter 2).<br />
Mule deer appear to be declining in<br />
the district for at least the past five decades.<br />
Sumner (1951) reported that mule deer were the<br />
dominant deer species below 6500’ in the Rincon<br />
Mountains, while white-tail deer occurred above<br />
7000’. Today, white-tail deer are commonly seen<br />
in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Cactus Forest Loop Drive<br />
(Don Swann, pers. obs.), <strong>and</strong> in this study mule<br />
deer were only photographed below 4000’ in<br />
elevation. Mule deer are declining throughout<br />
the western United States, <strong>and</strong> the cessation<br />
<strong>of</strong> cattle grazing at the district in the 1950s<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1960s has led to important changes in the<br />
vegetation community, such as growth <strong>of</strong> shrubs,<br />
that may favor the white-tail deer. The loss <strong>of</strong><br />
mule deer habitat outside the district (due to<br />
increases in the adjacent housing developments)<br />
is probably also a major factor in their declining<br />
population at the district. Similarly, American<br />
badgers were sighted <strong>of</strong>ten in the early years<br />
<strong>of</strong> the park (<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP, unpubl. records), but<br />
were not photographed or collected during this<br />
study. Two reliable observations (one inside the<br />
Cactus Forest Loop Drive, <strong>and</strong> one on the district<br />
boundary near Freeman Road) <strong>and</strong> one recent<br />
photograph <strong>of</strong> a American badger by Ranger John<br />
Williams at the Wildhorse Gate on Speedway in<br />
March, 2006, indicate that this species still occurs<br />
in the district, but is definitely now rare.
There is some suggestion that population<br />
declines have occurred, or are occurring, in the<br />
small mammal community. Kangaroo rats tend<br />
to prefer open-canopy areas with few shrubs,<br />
<strong>and</strong> were <strong>of</strong>ten mentioned in early accounts <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Today they are relatively<br />
uncommon <strong>and</strong> one species (the banner-tailed<br />
kangaroo rat) may be extirpated. The bannertailed<br />
kangaroo rat was present in low-elevation<br />
areas at some time prior to the mid-1980s<br />
(H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986). Changes in the small<br />
mammal community might be expected to follow<br />
the significant changes in desert vegetation in<br />
the district that have occurred since the 1930s.<br />
Changes included a dramatic increase in shrubs<br />
<strong>and</strong> forbs following the cessation <strong>of</strong> grazing,<br />
as a well as reduction in the number <strong>of</strong> saguaro<br />
cacti. More obviously, there have certainly been<br />
changes in the status <strong>of</strong> the Arizona gray squirrel<br />
in the park since the introduction <strong>of</strong> the nonnative<br />
Abert’s squirrel. These changes are not yet<br />
well-understood, <strong>and</strong> the Arizona gray squirrel<br />
still occurs in the Rincons. However, ongoing<br />
research suggests that the Aberts’s squirrel is<br />
successfully established throughout the high<br />
country, even where Arizona gray squirrels occur,<br />
<strong>and</strong> that the native species is now uncommon<br />
(Koprowski 2006).<br />
It is noteworthy that three species<br />
(American black bear, mountain lion, <strong>and</strong> whitenosed<br />
coati) have exhibited the opposite trend<br />
<strong>and</strong> have increased in recent decades. Sumner<br />
(1951) noted that mountain lions <strong>and</strong> American<br />
black bears were absent during his wildlife<br />
survey in 1951, <strong>and</strong> did not mention the whitenosed<br />
coati. We believe that mountain lions<br />
<strong>and</strong> American black bears have increased due to<br />
decreases in hunting pressure outside the district<br />
as well as due to improvements in habitat inside<br />
the district. White-nosed coati may be moving<br />
northward <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ing their population size<br />
(Davis <strong>and</strong> Callahan 1992). However, this<br />
species is known to undergo dramatic population<br />
fluctuations (Chris Hass, pers. comm.). Because<br />
there are no records <strong>of</strong> coati prior to 1957, it is<br />
likely that they are new arrivals to the district<br />
(Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner 1992). At any rate, the large<br />
number <strong>of</strong> photographs during our study, as well<br />
87<br />
as a number <strong>of</strong> sightings <strong>of</strong> breeding groups,<br />
suggest that this species is doing very well at the<br />
present time.<br />
Management Implications <strong>and</strong> Additional<br />
Research Needed<br />
Like many national parks (Newmark 1995,<br />
Powell et al. 2004), <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
has seen the loss <strong>of</strong> mammal species since it<br />
was created in 1933. Our study indicates that<br />
these losses may be continuing at the district.<br />
We believe that the loss <strong>of</strong> habitat outside the<br />
district is the primary concern for large mammals<br />
at the present time. It seems that significant<br />
management efforts, with a proactive political<br />
effort outside the district, are needed to prevent<br />
the future extirpation <strong>of</strong> species like American<br />
badger <strong>and</strong> mule deer. Because the district is<br />
a relatively large natural area, it will provide<br />
habitat for many more species than will smaller<br />
areas, including the Tucson Mountain District.<br />
While some species have declined or<br />
disappeared over the district’s history, many have<br />
increased. The park deserves credit for instituting<br />
l<strong>and</strong> management practices that have improved<br />
habitat for many species. NPS policies, including<br />
cessation <strong>of</strong> cattle grazing, banning <strong>of</strong> hunting<br />
<strong>and</strong> trapping, restoration <strong>of</strong> natural fire regimes,<br />
elimination <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>f-road vehicles, <strong>and</strong> restriction<br />
<strong>of</strong> road-building have all helped to improve<br />
conditions for mammals <strong>and</strong> other wildlife at<br />
the district. In addition, while the lack <strong>of</strong> high-<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ile encounters between humans <strong>and</strong> mountain<br />
lions at the district has probably been a matter<br />
<strong>of</strong> good luck; the district’s few American black<br />
bear incidents are probably the result <strong>of</strong> good<br />
bear management policies, including installation<br />
<strong>of</strong> bear boxes in all campsites <strong>and</strong> diligent<br />
housekeeping at Manning Cabin.<br />
Future research should focus on<br />
learning more about those mammals for which<br />
very little data are available. Our inventory<br />
suggests that these species include the American<br />
badger, eastern cottontail, grassl<strong>and</strong> rodents,<br />
pocket gophers, mule deer, <strong>and</strong> North American<br />
porcupine. With the exception <strong>of</strong> grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
rodents, all <strong>of</strong> these species may occur in low
populations in the district <strong>and</strong> may be sensitive to<br />
future extirpation. We recommend a monitoring<br />
program for mule deer, a high-pr<strong>of</strong>ile species;<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> this once-common species from a national<br />
park would be very unfortunate. We also<br />
recommend continued research on forest squirrels<br />
<strong>and</strong> increased research on small mammals.<br />
Pocket gophers, an ecologically significant group<br />
<strong>of</strong> animals at the park about which almost nothing<br />
is known, would also be an excellent c<strong>and</strong>idate<br />
for additional research.<br />
Additional small trapping may increase<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> species documented in the Rincon<br />
Mountain District. The Rincon Mountains are<br />
a rugged <strong>and</strong> remote mountain range. Packing,<br />
setting, checking, <strong>and</strong> removing live-traps<br />
is difficult <strong>and</strong> time-consuming work. We<br />
believe that complete underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
genus Peromyscus (white-footed mice) in the<br />
Rincons remains elusive. We confirmed cactus<br />
mouse <strong>and</strong> brush mouse, but two deer mouse<br />
specimens exist from the park (Appendix F),<br />
<strong>and</strong> white-footed mice may also occur in the<br />
district based on records from nearby mountain<br />
ranges (H<strong>of</strong>fmeister 1986, Lange 1960). In<br />
addition, mesquite mouse is also a possibility<br />
at lower elevations. Species in this genus are<br />
88<br />
very difficult to distinguish in the field, <strong>and</strong><br />
specimens (or genetic samples) are required. In<br />
addition, we failed to detect several semi-desert<br />
grassl<strong>and</strong> rodents that have been recorded in<br />
nearby mountain ranges where better access<br />
facilitates more comprehensive surveys. Whether<br />
our failure to capture more semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong><br />
species was due to insufficient effort or to<br />
interesting aspects <strong>of</strong> biogeography remains to be<br />
seen; there is evidence that many <strong>of</strong> these species<br />
simply do not occur in the Rincon Mountains.<br />
Nevertheless, we encourage the park to promote<br />
additional studies <strong>of</strong> small mammals in the<br />
district, particularly in the semi-desert grassl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
at elevations between 4000 <strong>and</strong> 6000 feet.<br />
We also suggest that the park encourage<br />
visitors to the backcountry to report sightings <strong>of</strong><br />
porcupines, which we believe may be extirpated<br />
from the district. Because porcupines are difficult<br />
to confuse with other species <strong>and</strong> because many<br />
park visitors now carry digital cameras, it would<br />
be prudent to enlist their assistance to report<br />
sightings <strong>of</strong> this species. We suggest posting<br />
requests for information at prominent trailheads<br />
or attaching such a request to each backcountry<br />
permit.
Chapter 7: Literature Cited<br />
Albrecht, E. W. 2001. Influence <strong>of</strong> microhabitat<br />
features on species richness <strong>and</strong> relative<br />
abundance in small mammal communities <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Arizona. Unpublished<br />
report to the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona <strong>Inventory</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> Monitoring Program, Tucson. Available in<br />
archive locations cited in Chapter 1.<br />
Allen, L. S. 1996. Ecological role <strong>of</strong> fire in the<br />
Madrean province. Pp. 5–10. In Effects <strong>of</strong> fire<br />
on Madrean province ecosystems. USDA Forest<br />
Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-289.<br />
Rocky Mountain Forest <strong>and</strong> Range Experiment<br />
Station, Ft. Collins, CO.<br />
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998.<br />
Checklist <strong>of</strong> North American birds, seventh<br />
edition. American Ornithologists’ Union <strong>and</strong><br />
Allen Press Inc., Lawrence, KS.<br />
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 2003.<br />
Forty-second supplement to the American<br />
Ornithologists’ Union checklist <strong>of</strong> North<br />
American birds. Auk 117:847–858.<br />
Anable, M. E., M. P. McClaran, <strong>and</strong> G. B. Ruyle.<br />
1992. Spread <strong>of</strong> introduced Lehmann’s lovegrass<br />
Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees. in southern<br />
Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 61:181–<br />
188.<br />
Anderson, D. R. 2001a. The need to get the basics<br />
right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society<br />
Bulletin 29:1294–1297.<br />
Anderson, G. 2001b. Rocking K Ranch <strong>and</strong><br />
Expansion Area: vegetation surveys 2001.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Anderson, R., <strong>and</strong> K. Schon. 1999. Fire effects<br />
monitoring in Mexican spotted owl habitat in<br />
the Rincon Mountains <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Arizona. Pp. 7–8. In L. Benson <strong>and</strong> B. Gebow,<br />
editors. A century <strong>of</strong> parks in southern Arizona:<br />
second conference on research <strong>and</strong> resource<br />
management in southern Arizona national parks,<br />
extended abstracts. National Park Service,<br />
Southern Arizona Office <strong>and</strong> <strong>USGS</strong> Sonoran<br />
Desert Field Station, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Aslan, C. 2000. Mammalian predators in the Rincon<br />
Mountain District <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park: a<br />
high-elevation survey using remote photography.<br />
Unpublished report to University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
Conservation Biology Internship Program <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson, Arizona.<br />
Babb, R. D., D. E. Brown, <strong>and</strong> J. L. Childs. 2004. On<br />
the status <strong>of</strong> the opossum (Didelphis virginiana)<br />
89<br />
in Arizona. Journal <strong>of</strong> the Arizona-Nevada<br />
Academy <strong>of</strong> Science 36:120–126.<br />
Bahre, C. J. 1995. A legacy <strong>of</strong> change: historic human<br />
impact on vegetation in the Arizona borderl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Press, Tucson.<br />
Bailey, R. G. 1998. Ecoregions: The ecosystem<br />
geography <strong>of</strong> the oceans <strong>and</strong> continents.<br />
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.<br />
Bailey, S. J. 1994. <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument<br />
sensitive raptor surveys. Unpublished notes (for<br />
12 through 17 April 1994) to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Tucson.<br />
Baird, K. J., R. MacNish, <strong>and</strong> D. P. Guertin. 2000. An<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> hydrologic <strong>and</strong> riparian resources<br />
in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson, Arizona.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Hydrology <strong>and</strong> Water Resources,<br />
Research Laboratory for Riparian Studies,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Baisan, C. H., <strong>and</strong> T. W. Swetnam. 1990. Fire history<br />
on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain<br />
Wilderness, Arizona, USA. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Forestry Research 20:1559–1569.<br />
Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W.<br />
Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. H<strong>of</strong>fmann, C. A.<br />
Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, <strong>and</strong> C. Jones. 2003a.<br />
Revised checklist <strong>of</strong> North American mammals<br />
north <strong>of</strong> Mexico, 2003. Occasional Papers <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Museum <strong>of</strong> Texas Tech University 229:1–23.<br />
Baker, R. J., M. B. O’Neill, <strong>and</strong> L. R. McAliley.<br />
2003b. A new species <strong>of</strong> desert shrew,<br />
Notiosorex, based on nuclear <strong>and</strong> mitochondrial<br />
sequence data. Occasional papers, Museum <strong>of</strong><br />
Texas Tech University 222:1–12.<br />
Beauvais, G. P., <strong>and</strong> S. W. Buskirk. 1999. Modifying<br />
estimates <strong>of</strong> sampling effort to account for<br />
sprung traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:39–<br />
43.<br />
Berner, L. R., <strong>and</strong> R. W. Mannan. 1992. Survey for<br />
sensitive raptors in the Rincon Mountains <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument, Arizona. Final<br />
report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, <strong>and</strong> D. A. Hill. 2002.<br />
Bird census techniques. Academic Press,<br />
London, Engl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Black, K. L. 1982. An annotated checklist <strong>of</strong> the<br />
herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument’s<br />
Rincon Mountain Unit. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument, Tucson, Arizona.<br />
Boal, C. W., <strong>and</strong> R. W. Mannan. 1996. Avian<br />
inventory. In L. Harris <strong>and</strong> W. Shaw, editors.<br />
Wildlife <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Valley.
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial<br />
vegetation. John Wiley <strong>and</strong> Sons Inc., New<br />
York, NY.<br />
Bonine, K. E., <strong>and</strong> C. R. Schwalbe. 2003.<br />
Herpet<strong>of</strong>auna inventory <strong>of</strong> the Madrona Pools<br />
area. Pp. 44–61. In T. Edwards <strong>and</strong> D. E.<br />
Swann, editors. Madrona Pools “Pulse” study.<br />
Final report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Bowers, J. E. 1984. Woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> forest flora <strong>and</strong><br />
vegetation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Bowers, J. E., <strong>and</strong> S. P. McLaughlin. 1987. Flora<br />
<strong>and</strong> vegetation <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains, Pima<br />
County, Arizona. Desert <strong>Plant</strong>s 8:50–95.<br />
Bowers, J. E., <strong>and</strong> S. P. McLaughlin. 1996. Flora<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Huachuca Mountains, a botanically rich<br />
<strong>and</strong> historically significant sky isl<strong>and</strong> in Cochise<br />
County, Arizona. Journal <strong>of</strong> the Arizona-Nevada<br />
Academy <strong>of</strong> Science 29:66–107.<br />
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1965. <strong>Plant</strong> sociology: the study<br />
<strong>of</strong> plant communities. Hafner Inc., London,<br />
Engl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Briggs, M. K., L. Harris, J. Howe, <strong>and</strong> W. Halvorson.<br />
1996. Using long-term monitoring to underst<strong>and</strong><br />
how adjacent l<strong>and</strong> development affects natural<br />
areas: an example from <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Arizona (USA). Natural Areas Journal 16:354–<br />
361.<br />
Brown, D. E. 1994. Biotic communities:<br />
southwestern United States <strong>and</strong> northwestern<br />
Mexico. University <strong>of</strong> Utah Press, Salt Lake<br />
City, UT.<br />
Bucci, M. 2001. Final report: small mammal<br />
trapping, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park Expansion Area<br />
<strong>and</strong> Rocking K Ranch. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Buckl<strong>and</strong>, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L.<br />
Laake, D. L. Borchers, <strong>and</strong> L. Thomas. 2001.<br />
Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> biological populations. Oxford<br />
University Press, London, Engl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Cain, A. T., V. R. Touvila, D. G. Hewitt, <strong>and</strong> M.<br />
E. Tewes. 2003. Effects <strong>of</strong> a highway <strong>and</strong><br />
mitigation projects on bobcats in southern Texas.<br />
Biological Conservation 114:189–197.<br />
Carothers, S.W., R. R. Johnson, <strong>and</strong> S.W. Atchinson.<br />
1974. Population structure <strong>and</strong> social<br />
organization <strong>of</strong> southwestern riparian birds.<br />
American Zoologist 14:97–108.<br />
Clark, B. K., B. S. Clark, L. A. Johnson, <strong>and</strong> M. T.<br />
Haynie. 2001. Influence <strong>of</strong> roads on movements<br />
90<br />
<strong>of</strong> small mammals. Southwestern Naturalist<br />
46:338–344.<br />
Clarke, A. L., <strong>and</strong> T. Pacin. 2002. Domestic cat<br />
“colonies” in natural areas: a growing exotic<br />
species threat. Natural Areas Journal 22:154–<br />
159.<br />
Clarkson, R. W., <strong>and</strong> J. C. Rorabaugh. 1989. Status<br />
<strong>of</strong> leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex:<br />
Ranidae) in Arizona <strong>and</strong> southeastern California.<br />
Southwestern Naturalist 34:531–538.<br />
Cockrum, E. L. 1960. The recent mammals <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona: their taxonomy <strong>and</strong> distribution.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Press, Tucson.<br />
Cody, M. L. 1981. Habitat selection in birds: the<br />
roles <strong>of</strong> vegetation structure, competitors, <strong>and</strong><br />
productivity. BioScience 31:170–113.<br />
Cole, C. J., <strong>and</strong> H. C. Dessauer. 1994. Unisexual<br />
lizards (genus Cnemidophorus) <strong>of</strong> the Madrean<br />
Archipelago. Pp. 267–273. In Biodiversity <strong>and</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> the Madrean Archipelago: the<br />
Sky Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Southwestern United States <strong>and</strong><br />
northwestern Mexico. General Technical Report<br />
RM-GTR-264. USDA Forest Service, Rocky<br />
Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.<br />
Colver, K. J., D. Stokes, <strong>and</strong> L. Stokes. 1999. Stokes<br />
field guide to bird songs. Time Warner, New<br />
York, NY.<br />
Conway, C. J., <strong>and</strong> C. Kirkpatrick. 2001. Population<br />
status, detection probability, <strong>and</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> fire<br />
on buff-breasted flycatchers. Final report to the<br />
Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department, Phoenix,<br />
AZ.<br />
Corman, T. E., <strong>and</strong> R. T. Magill. 2000. Western<br />
yellow-billed cuckoo in Arizona: 1998 <strong>and</strong> 1999<br />
survey report. Technical report 150. Arizona<br />
Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department, Nongame <strong>and</strong><br />
endangered wildlife program. Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Corman, T. E., <strong>and</strong> C. Wise-Gervais, editors. 2005.<br />
Arizona breeding bird atlas. University <strong>of</strong> New<br />
Mexico Press, Albuquerque, MN.<br />
Coss, H. 1969. Rincon Mountain bighorn.<br />
Unpublished report in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
files, Tucson.<br />
Crump, M. L., <strong>and</strong> N. J. Scott. 1994. Visual<br />
encounter surveys. Pp. 84–92. In W. R. Heyer,<br />
M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C.<br />
Hayek, <strong>and</strong> M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring<br />
<strong>and</strong> monitoring biodiversity: St<strong>and</strong>ard methods<br />
for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press,<br />
Washington, D.C.<br />
Davis, R., <strong>and</strong> J. R. Callahan. 1992. Post-Pleistocene<br />
dispersal in the Mexican vole (Mictrotis<br />
mexicanus): an example <strong>of</strong> an apparent trend in<br />
the distribution <strong>of</strong> southwestern mammals. Great<br />
Basin Naturalist 52:262–268.
Davis, R., <strong>and</strong> C. Dunford. 1987. An example <strong>of</strong><br />
contemporary colonization by small, nonflying<br />
mammals <strong>of</strong> montane isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the American<br />
Southwest. American Naturalist 129:398–406.<br />
Davis, K., <strong>and</strong> W. L. Halvorson. 2000. A study plan<br />
to inventory vascular plants <strong>and</strong> vertebrates:<br />
Sonoran Desert Network. National Park Service,<br />
Southern Arizona Office, Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Davis, R., <strong>and</strong> R. Sidner. 1992. Mammals <strong>of</strong><br />
woodl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> forest habitats in the Rincon<br />
Mountains <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument,<br />
Arizona. Technical Report 47. Cooperative<br />
Park Resources Study Unit, School <strong>of</strong> Natural<br />
Resources, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Davis, R., <strong>and</strong> O. G. Ward. 1988. The vacant<br />
“Microtis niche” now occupied by the yellownosed<br />
cotton rat (Sigmodon ochrognathus) on<br />
an isolated mountain in southeastern Arizona.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Mammalogy 69:362–365.<br />
Degenhardt, W. G., C. W. Painter, <strong>and</strong> A. H. Price.<br />
1996. Amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles <strong>of</strong> New Mexico.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,<br />
NM.<br />
Dimmitt, M. A. 2000. Biomes <strong>and</strong> communities <strong>of</strong><br />
the Sonoran Desert region. In S. J. Phillips <strong>and</strong><br />
P. W. Comus, editors. A natural history <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Sonoran Desert. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum<br />
Press, Tucson.<br />
Doll, M. H., R. V. Ellis, R. L. Hayes, R. Sidner, H.<br />
McCrystal, R. Davis, <strong>and</strong> R. L. Hall. 1986. A<br />
checklist <strong>of</strong> the herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>and</strong> mammals <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument. Southwest Parks<br />
<strong>and</strong> Monuments Association, Tucson.<br />
Drewes, H. 1977. Geologic map <strong>and</strong> sections <strong>of</strong><br />
Rincon Valley Quadrangle, Pima County,<br />
Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous<br />
Investigations Series Map I-997.<br />
Duncan, D. K. 1990. Nocturnal rodent populations<br />
<strong>and</strong> associated vegetation with implications<br />
<strong>of</strong> human use at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument,<br />
Arizona. Technical Report 35. Cooperative<br />
National Park Service Resources Study Unit,<br />
School <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Edwards, T., C. R. Schwalbe, D. E. Swann, <strong>and</strong> C. S.<br />
Goldberg. 2004. Implications <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape change on inter-population movements<br />
<strong>of</strong> the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).<br />
Conservation Genetics 5:485–499.<br />
Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, J. W. Willoughby, <strong>and</strong> J.<br />
P. Gibbs. 2001. Monitoring plant <strong>and</strong> animal<br />
populations. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA.<br />
Esque, T.C., A. M. Búrquez, C. R. Schwalbe, T. R.<br />
Van Devender, M. J. M. Nijhuis, <strong>and</strong> P. Anning.<br />
91<br />
2003. Effects <strong>of</strong> fire on desert tortoises <strong>and</strong> their<br />
habitats. In T. R. Van Devender, editor. The<br />
Sonoran Desert tortoise: natural history, biology<br />
<strong>and</strong> conservation. Arizona-Sonora Desert<br />
Museum Press, Tucson.<br />
Felley, D. L., <strong>and</strong> T. E. Corman. 1993. Spring<br />
1993 cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl surveys in<br />
Arizona. Unpublished report. Nongame <strong>and</strong><br />
endangered wildlife program, Arizona Game <strong>and</strong><br />
Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Fishbein, M. 1995. Flora <strong>of</strong> Madrona Canyon.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Fishbein, M., <strong>and</strong> J. E. Bowers. 1996. Additions <strong>and</strong><br />
corrections to the Flora <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains,<br />
Pima County, Arizona. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Fishbein, M., S. McMahon, G. Ferguson, V.<br />
Steinmann, <strong>and</strong> A. Johnson. 1994a. Flora <strong>of</strong><br />
Chimenea Canyon, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument,<br />
East Unit. Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Tucson.<br />
Fishbein, M., V. Steinmann <strong>and</strong> A. Johnson.<br />
1994b. Floristic Survey <strong>of</strong> the proposed Box<br />
Canyon Protected Natural Area: Final report.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Fitzgerald, C. S. 1996. Large mammal inventory.<br />
Pp. 20–23. In L. K. Harris, editor. Wildlife<br />
inventory <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
expansion area. Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Tucson.<br />
Flesch, A. D. 2001. Distribution, relative abundance,<br />
<strong>and</strong> microhabitat associations <strong>of</strong> small mammals<br />
in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, southeast Arizona.<br />
Unpublished report to the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
<strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>and</strong> Monitoring Program, Tucson.<br />
Flesch, A. D, D. E. Swann, <strong>and</strong> B. F. Powell. 2006.<br />
Amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Tucson Mountain District. In B. F. Powell,<br />
C. A. Schmidt, <strong>and</strong> W. L. Halvorson, editors.<br />
<strong>Plant</strong> <strong>and</strong> vertebrate inventory <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Tucson Mountain District.<br />
Unpublished report to Sonoran Desert Network<br />
I&M Program, Tucson.<br />
Frederici, P. 1998. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> avian resources<br />
<strong>and</strong> habitats in the <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
expansion area, Rincon Mountain District.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Frohn, R. C. 1998. Remote sensing for l<strong>and</strong>scape<br />
ecology: new metric indicators for monitoring,<br />
modeling <strong>and</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> ecosystems. Lewis<br />
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Fuller, M. R., <strong>and</strong> J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor<br />
survey techniques. Pp. 37–66. In B. A. Geron-<br />
Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, <strong>and</strong> D. M.<br />
Bird, editors. Raptor management techniques<br />
manual. National Wildlife Federation,<br />
Washington, D.C.<br />
Funicelli, C. S., P. J. Anning, <strong>and</strong> D. S. Turner. 2001.<br />
Long-term vegetation monitoring at <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park: A decade <strong>of</strong> change. Technical<br />
Report No. 70. <strong>USGS</strong> Sonoran Desert Research<br />
Station, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Germaine, S. S., S. S. Rosenstock, R. E.<br />
Schweinsburg, <strong>and</strong> W. S. Richardson. 1998.<br />
Relationships among breeding birds, habitat,<br />
<strong>and</strong> residential development in greater Tucson,<br />
Arizona. Ecological Applications 8:680–691.<br />
Girmendonk, A. L. 1994. Ocelot, jaguar, <strong>and</strong><br />
jaguarundi sighting reports: Arizona <strong>and</strong> Sonora,<br />
Mexico. Unpublished report, Arizona Game<br />
<strong>and</strong> Fish Department, Nongame <strong>and</strong> Endangered<br />
Wildlife Program, Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Goad, M. S., <strong>and</strong> R. W. Mannan. 1987. Nest site<br />
selection by elf owls in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Monument, Arizona. Condor 89:659–662.<br />
Goldberg, C., D. E. Swann, <strong>and</strong> J. E. Wallace. 2004.<br />
Genetic structure <strong>of</strong> lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog<br />
populations at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Final<br />
report to Western National Parks Association <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Goode, M. J., D. Turner, <strong>and</strong> S. Breeden. 1998.<br />
Herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
expansion area: Habitat assessment, inventory,<br />
threats <strong>and</strong> management recommendations.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Griscom, H. 2000. <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Arizona,<br />
sensitive raptor survey, 2000. Unpublished<br />
report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Guertin, P. P. 1998. A vegetation <strong>and</strong> plant survey <strong>of</strong><br />
the newly added l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Rincon Mountain District. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Halvorson, W. L., <strong>and</strong> B. S. Gebow, editors. 2000.<br />
Floristic surveys <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park<br />
protected natural areas. Technical Report No.<br />
68. <strong>USGS</strong> Sonoran Desert Research Station,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Halvorson, W. L., <strong>and</strong> P. P. Guertin. 2003. <strong>USGS</strong><br />
Weeds in the West project: status <strong>of</strong> introduced<br />
plants in southern Arizona Parks. <strong>USGS</strong>,<br />
Sonoran Desert Research Station, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Hayek, L. C., <strong>and</strong> M. A. Buzas. 1997. Surveying<br />
natural populations. Columbia University Press,<br />
New York, NY.<br />
92<br />
Heritage Data Management System (HDMS). 2004.<br />
Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department. Accessed<br />
5 March from: http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/<br />
edits/hdms_species_lists.html.<br />
H<strong>of</strong>fmeister, D. F. 1956. Mammals <strong>of</strong> the Graham<br />
(Pinaleño) Mountains, Arizona. American<br />
Midl<strong>and</strong> Naturalist 55:257–288.<br />
H<strong>of</strong>fmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals <strong>of</strong> Arizona.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Press <strong>and</strong> Arizona Game<br />
<strong>and</strong> Fish Department, Tucson.<br />
H<strong>of</strong>fmeister, D. F., <strong>and</strong> W. W. Goodpaster. 1954.<br />
The mammals <strong>of</strong> the Huachuca Mountains,<br />
southeastern Arizona. Illinois Biological<br />
Monograph 24.<br />
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).<br />
2005. Accessed on 20 March 2005 from: http://<br />
www.itis.usda.gov/index.html.<br />
Ivanyi, C., J. Perry, T. R. Van Devender, <strong>and</strong> H.<br />
Lawler. 2000. Reptile <strong>and</strong> amphibian accounts.<br />
Pp. 533–585. In S. J. Phillips <strong>and</strong> P. W. Comus,<br />
editors. A natural history <strong>of</strong> the Sonoran Desert.<br />
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Press, Tucson.<br />
James, F. C. 1971. Ordinations <strong>of</strong> habitat<br />
relationships among breeding birds. Wilson<br />
Bulletin 83:215–236.<br />
Johnson, R. R., <strong>and</strong> L. T. Haight. 1991. The<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> xeroriparian ecosystems to<br />
the wintering avifauna <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Monument. Pp. 105–110. In Proceedings <strong>of</strong><br />
the symposium on research in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Monument. Cooperative Park Studies Unit,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Johnson, W. T. 1988. Flora <strong>of</strong> the Pinaleño<br />
Mountains, Graham County, Arizona. Desert<br />
<strong>Plant</strong>s 8:147–162.<br />
Jones, C. A., C. R. Schwalbe, D. E. Swann, D. P.<br />
Prival, <strong>and</strong> W. W. Shaw. 2005. Mycoplasma<br />
agassizii in desert tortoises. Final report to the<br />
Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department Heritage<br />
Grant Project #U03005. Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Keddy-Hector, D. P. 1998. Aplomado falcon (Falco<br />
femoralis). In R. Glinski, editor. Raptors <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona. University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Press, Tucson.<br />
Kennedy, K. A., <strong>and</strong> P. A. Addison. 1987. Some<br />
considerations for the use <strong>of</strong> visual estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
plant cover in biomonitoring. Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecology<br />
75:151-157.<br />
Kerpez, T. A., <strong>and</strong> N. S. Smith. 1990. Competition<br />
between European starlings <strong>and</strong> native<br />
woodpeckers for nest cavities in <strong>Saguaro</strong>s. Auk<br />
107:367–375.<br />
Kirkpatrick, C., <strong>and</strong> C. J. Conway. In prep. Effects<br />
<strong>of</strong> fire on montane forest birds in southeastern<br />
Arizona.
Kirkpatrick, C., C. J. Conway, <strong>and</strong> P. B. Jones. 2006.<br />
Distribution <strong>and</strong> relative abundance <strong>of</strong> forest<br />
birds in relation to burn severity in southeastern<br />
Arizona. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management 70:<br />
1009-1012.<br />
Kline, N. C., <strong>and</strong> D. E. Swann. 1998. Quantifying<br />
wildlife mortality on roads in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park. Pp. 23–31. In G. L. Evink, P. Garrett,<br />
D. Zeigler, <strong>and</strong> J. Berry, editors. Proceedings<br />
<strong>of</strong> conference on transportation <strong>and</strong> wildlife<br />
ecology, Fort Meyers, FL, February 10–12 1998.<br />
Koprowski, J. 2006. Ecology <strong>of</strong> introduced Abert’s<br />
squirrels. Final report to Western National Parks<br />
Assocation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson,<br />
AZ.<br />
Kotliar, N. B., <strong>and</strong> J. A. Weins. 1990. Multiple scales<br />
<strong>of</strong> patchiness <strong>and</strong> patch structure: a hierarchical<br />
framework for the study <strong>of</strong> heterogeneity. Oikos<br />
59:253–260.<br />
Krebs, C. J. 1998. Ecological methodology. Second<br />
edition. Addison-Welsey Educational, Menlo<br />
Park, CA.<br />
Kucera, T. E., <strong>and</strong> R. H. Barrett. 1993. The<br />
Trailmaster camera system for detecting wildlife.<br />
Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:505–508.<br />
Lange, K. I. 1960. Mammals <strong>of</strong> the Santa Catalina<br />
Mountains, Arizona. American Midl<strong>and</strong><br />
Naturalist 64:436–438.<br />
Latta, M. J., C. J. Beardmore, <strong>and</strong> T. E. Corman.<br />
1999. Arizona Partners in Flight conservation<br />
plan. Technical Report 142. Nongame <strong>and</strong><br />
Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game<br />
<strong>and</strong> Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Levy, P. S., <strong>and</strong> S. Lemeshow. 1999. Sampling <strong>of</strong><br />
populations: methods <strong>and</strong> applications. John<br />
Wiley <strong>and</strong> Sons, New York, NY.<br />
Lowe, C. H. 1992. On the biogeography <strong>of</strong> the<br />
herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument.<br />
Pp. 91–104. In Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the symposium<br />
on research in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument.<br />
Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Lowe, C. H. 1994. An overview <strong>of</strong> the herpet<strong>of</strong>auna<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Sonoran Desert. In: Herpetology <strong>of</strong><br />
the North American deserts: Proceedings <strong>of</strong><br />
a symposium. Southwestern Herpetologists<br />
Society, Special Publication No. 5:71-78.<br />
Lowe, C. H., <strong>and</strong> P. A. Holm. 1991. The amphibians<br />
<strong>and</strong> reptiles at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument,<br />
Arizona. Technical Report No. 37. Cooperative<br />
National Park Resources Studies Unit, University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Lynn, S. 1996. Large mammal survey. Pp. 29-40.<br />
In L. K. Harris <strong>and</strong> C. R. Schwalbe, editors.<br />
Wildlife inventory <strong>of</strong> the Rincon Valley. Arizona<br />
Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Heritage Project U93007,<br />
Phoenix, AZ.<br />
MacArthur, R. H., <strong>and</strong> J. W. MacArthur. 1961. On<br />
bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598.<br />
Mannan, R. W., <strong>and</strong> B. Bibles. 1989. Impacts <strong>of</strong><br />
exotic cavity-nesting birds on native cavitynesting<br />
birds in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Marshall, J. T., Jr. 1956. Summer birds in the Rincon<br />
Mountains, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument,<br />
Arizona. Condor 58:81–97.<br />
Mau-Crimmins, T., A. Hubbard, D. Angell, C.<br />
Filipone, <strong>and</strong> N. Kline. 2005. Sonoran Desert<br />
Network vital signs monitoring plan. Technical<br />
report NPS/IMR/SODN-003. National Park<br />
Service. Denver, CO.<br />
McAuliffe, J. R. 1993. Case study <strong>of</strong> research,<br />
monitoring, <strong>and</strong> management programs<br />
associated with the saguaro cactus (Carnegia<br />
gigantea) at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument,<br />
Arizona. Technical report NPS/WRUA/NRTR-<br />
93/01. National Park Service, Cooperative<br />
National Park Resources Studies Unit, University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
M’Closkey, R. T. 1980. Spatial patterns in sizes <strong>of</strong><br />
seeds collected by four species <strong>of</strong> heteromyid<br />
rodents. Ecology 61:486–489.<br />
McColly, R. A. 1961. Geology <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Monument Area, Pima County, Arizona.<br />
Masters Thesis, Department <strong>of</strong> Geology,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
McLaughlin, S. P. 1986. A floristic analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
the southwestern United States. Great Basin<br />
Naturalist 46:46–55.<br />
McLaughlin, S. P. 1993. Additions to the flora <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Pinaleño Mountains, Graham County, Arizona.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> the Arizona-Nevada Academy <strong>of</strong><br />
Science 27:5–32.<br />
McLaughlin, S. P., <strong>and</strong> M. P. McClaran. 2004. Recent<br />
additions to the flora <strong>of</strong> the Pinaleño Mountains,<br />
Graham County, Arizona. Journal <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Arizona-Nevada Academy <strong>of</strong> Science 37:91–93.<br />
McPherson, G. R. 1993. Effects <strong>of</strong> herbivory <strong>and</strong><br />
herb interference on oak establishment in a semiarid<br />
temperate savanna. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vegetation<br />
Science 4:687–692.<br />
Mills, G. S., J. B. Dunning Jr., <strong>and</strong> J. M. Bates.<br />
1989. Effects <strong>of</strong> urbanization <strong>of</strong> breeding bird<br />
community structure in southwestern desert<br />
habitats. Condor 91:416–428.<br />
Monson, G., <strong>and</strong> S. Smith. 1985. Bird checklist for<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument. Southwest Parks<br />
<strong>and</strong> Monument Association, Tucson.<br />
93
Mott, D. N. 1997. <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Arizona<br />
Water Resources Report. Unpublished report by<br />
the National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.<br />
Murray, R. C. 1996. Amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile inventory.<br />
Pp. 31–46. In Wildlife inventory <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park expansion area. L. K. Harris,<br />
editor. Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Tucson.<br />
National Park Service (NPS). 1992a. NPS-75:<br />
Natural resources inventory <strong>and</strong> monitoring<br />
guidelines. U.S. Dept. <strong>of</strong> Interior, Washington,<br />
D.C.<br />
National Park Service (NPS). 1992b. Update to the<br />
natural/cultural resources management plan.<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument, Tucson.<br />
National Park Service (NPS). 2005. NPS visitation<br />
database reports. Accessed on 09 January 2005<br />
from:. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/NPstats/<br />
npstats.cfm.<br />
Nelson, L., <strong>and</strong> F. W. Clark. 1973. Correction<br />
for sprung traps in catch/effort calculations<br />
<strong>of</strong> trapping results. Journal <strong>of</strong> Mammology<br />
54:295–298.<br />
Newmark, W. D. 1995. Extinction <strong>of</strong> mammal<br />
populations in western North-American national<br />
parks. Conservation Biology 9:512–526.<br />
North American Ornithological Atlas Committee<br />
(NAOAC). 1990. H<strong>and</strong>book for atlasing<br />
North American breeding birds. C. Smith,<br />
editor. Accessed 13 July 2001 from: http://<br />
americanbirding.org/norac/atlascont.htm.<br />
Phillips, A., J. Marshall, <strong>and</strong> G. Monson. 1964. The<br />
birds <strong>of</strong> Arizona. The University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Press,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Pima Association <strong>of</strong> Governments (PAG). 2005.<br />
Population estimates 1980–2004. Accessed<br />
on Aug 22, 2005 from: http://www.pagnet.org/<br />
population/data/Est1980-2004.htm.<br />
Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD). 2005.<br />
Unpublished data from Manning Camp ALERT<br />
rain gauge. Accessed 23 June 2005 from: http://<br />
rfcd.pima.gov/alertsys/.<br />
Pollock. K. H., J. D. Nichols, T. R. Simons, G. L.<br />
Farnsworth, L. L. Bailey, <strong>and</strong> J. R. Sauer.<br />
2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies:<br />
statistical methods for design <strong>and</strong> analysis.<br />
Environmetrics 13:105-119.<br />
Powell, B. F. 1999. Birds <strong>of</strong> the Rocking K<br />
Development <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Powell, B. F. 2004. Assessment <strong>of</strong> the bird<br />
community along the Middle Reach <strong>of</strong> Rincon<br />
94<br />
Creek, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Unpublished<br />
report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Powell, B. F., E. W. Albrecht, W. L. Halvorson,<br />
<strong>and</strong> K. Docherty. 2003. Biological inventory<br />
report for the Sonoran Desert Network:<br />
2002. Annual Report No. 2. Sonoran Desert<br />
Network <strong>Inventory</strong> Program. <strong>USGS</strong>, Sonoran<br />
Desert Research Station <strong>and</strong> School <strong>of</strong> Natural<br />
Resources, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Powell, B. F., E. W. Albrecht, W. L. Halvorson, C.<br />
A. Schmidt, P. Anning, <strong>and</strong> K. Docherty. 2005.<br />
<strong>Vascular</strong> plant <strong>and</strong> vertebrate inventory <strong>of</strong><br />
Tumacácori National Historical Park. <strong>USGS</strong><br />
Open File Report 2005-1142. U.S.Geological<br />
Survey, Southwest Biological Sciences Center,<br />
Sonoran Desert Research Station, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Powell, B. F., E. W. Albrecht, W. L. Halvorson, C. A.<br />
Schmidt, <strong>and</strong> K. Docherty. 2004. <strong>Vascular</strong> plant<br />
<strong>and</strong> vertebrate inventory <strong>of</strong> Casa Gr<strong>and</strong>e Ruins<br />
National Monument. Final report to the National<br />
Park Service, Sonoran Desert <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Monitoring Program, Tucson.<br />
Powell, B. F., K. Docherty, <strong>and</strong> W. L. Halvorson.<br />
2002. Biological inventory report for the<br />
Sonoran Desert Network: 2000 <strong>and</strong> 2001 field<br />
seasons. Annual Report No. 1. Sonoran Desert<br />
Network <strong>Inventory</strong> Program. <strong>USGS</strong>, Sonoran<br />
Desert Research Station <strong>and</strong> School <strong>of</strong> Natural<br />
Resources, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Pyne, S. J. 1996. Nouvelle southwest. Pp. 10–16.<br />
In W. Covington, <strong>and</strong> P. K. Wagner, editors.<br />
Conference on adaptive ecosystems restoration<br />
<strong>and</strong> management: restoration <strong>of</strong> cordilleran<br />
conifer l<strong>and</strong>scapes <strong>of</strong> North America. General<br />
Technical Report RM-GTR-278. USDA Forest<br />
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest <strong>and</strong> Range<br />
Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO.<br />
Ralph, C. J., J. R. Sauer, <strong>and</strong> S. Droege, technical<br />
editors. 1995. Monitoring bird populations<br />
by point counts. General Technical Report<br />
PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Service, Pacific<br />
Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.<br />
Ramsey, F. L., <strong>and</strong> D. W. Schafer. 2002. The<br />
statistical sleuth: a course in methods <strong>of</strong> data<br />
analysis. 2 nd Edition. Duxbury, Inc., Pacific<br />
Grove, CA.<br />
Rappole, J. H. 1995. The ecology <strong>of</strong> migrant birds: a<br />
neotropical perspective. Smithsonian Institution<br />
Press, Washington, D.C.<br />
Reynolds, R. T., J. M. Scott, <strong>and</strong> R. A. Nussbaum.<br />
1980. A variable circular-plot method for<br />
estimating bird numbers. Condor 82:309–313.
Rice, J., B. W. Anderson, <strong>and</strong> R. D. Ohmart. 1984.<br />
Comparison <strong>of</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> different habitat<br />
attributes to avian community organization.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management 48:895–911.<br />
Rondeau, R., <strong>and</strong> R. Van Devender. 1992. Floristic<br />
survey <strong>of</strong> the proposed Wildhorse Canyon<br />
Protected Natural Area. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Roseberry, R. D., <strong>and</strong> N. E. Dole, Jr. 1939. The<br />
vegetation type survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Monument. Unpublished report.<br />
Rosen, P. C. 2000. A monitoring study <strong>of</strong> vertebrate<br />
community ecology in the northern Sonoran<br />
Desert, Arizona. Unpublished PhD dissertation,<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology <strong>and</strong> Evolutionary<br />
Biology, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Rosen, P. C., <strong>and</strong> C. H. Lowe. 1995. Lizard<br />
monitoring protocol for the ecological<br />
monitoring program in Organ Pipe Cactus<br />
National Monument, Arizona. Special Report 11,<br />
Section 4. Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, W. C. Hunter, <strong>and</strong><br />
B. W. Anderson. 1991. Birds <strong>of</strong> the Lower<br />
Colorado River Valley. University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
Press, Tucson.<br />
Roth, R. L. 1976. Spatial heterogeneity <strong>and</strong> bird<br />
species diversity. Ecology 57:773–782.<br />
Russell, S., <strong>and</strong> G. Monson. 1998. The birds <strong>of</strong><br />
Sonora. University <strong>of</strong> Arizona Press, Tucson.<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park (<strong>Saguaro</strong> NP). 2005. Sonoran<br />
upl<strong>and</strong> vegetation monitoring in <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, 1999–2005. In-park report.<br />
Schwalbe, C. R., T. C. Esque, M. J. Nijhuis, D. F.<br />
Haines, J. W. Clark, <strong>and</strong> P. J. Swantek. 1999.<br />
Effects <strong>of</strong> fire on Arizona Upl<strong>and</strong> Desertscrub<br />
at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Pp. 107–109. In L.<br />
Benson <strong>and</strong> B. Gebow, editors. A century <strong>of</strong><br />
parks in southern Arizona: second conference on<br />
research <strong>and</strong> resource management in southern<br />
Arizona national parks, extended abstracts.<br />
National Park Service, Southern Arizona Office<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>USGS</strong> Sonoran Desert Research Station,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Shaffer, H. B., <strong>and</strong> J. E. Juterbock. 1994. Night<br />
driving. Pp. 163–166. In W. R. Heyer, M. A.<br />
Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, <strong>and</strong><br />
M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring <strong>and</strong> monitoring<br />
biodiversity: st<strong>and</strong>ard methods for amphibians.<br />
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.<br />
Shmida, A. 1984. Whittaker’s plant diversity<br />
sampling method. Israel Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
33:41–46.<br />
95<br />
Short, K. C. 1996. Results <strong>of</strong> the Arizona Breeding<br />
Bird Atlas effort in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park.<br />
Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Short, K. C. 2002. The effects <strong>of</strong> low-severity<br />
prescribed fires on vegetation, arthropods, <strong>and</strong><br />
breeding birds in southwestern ponderosa pine<br />
forest. PhD. Dissertation <strong>and</strong> technical report,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Montana, Missoula, MT.<br />
Shreve, F. 1951. Vegetation <strong>of</strong> the Sonoran Desert.<br />
Carnegie Institution <strong>of</strong> Washington Publication<br />
no. 591. Washington, D.C.<br />
Sidner, R. 1991. Survey for the endangered lesser<br />
long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae) on<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Monument: May–September<br />
1991. Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Tuscon.<br />
Sidner, R. 2003. Bat diversity at the Madrona Pools<br />
area. Pp 74–83. In T. Edwards <strong>and</strong> D. E.<br />
Swann, editors. Madrona Pools PULSE study.<br />
Unpublished report, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Sidner, R., <strong>and</strong> R. Davis. 1994. Bats <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Monument, 1992–1994. Unpublished<br />
report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Sprouse, T., R. Emanuel, <strong>and</strong> B. Tellman. 2002.<br />
Final report: surface water quality monitoring<br />
overview <strong>and</strong> assessment for the Sonoran Desert<br />
Network, National Park Service. Unpublished<br />
report. Water Resources Research Center,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Sredl, M. J., J. M. Howl<strong>and</strong>, J. E. Wallace, <strong>and</strong> L.<br />
S. Saylor. 1997. Status <strong>and</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona’s native Ranid frogs. Pp. 37–89. In<br />
M. J. Sredl, editor. Ranid frog conservation<br />
<strong>and</strong> management. Technical Report no. 121,<br />
Nongame <strong>and</strong> Endangered Wildlife Program,<br />
Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department, Phoenix,<br />
AZ.<br />
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles<br />
<strong>and</strong> amphibians. Third edition. Houghton<br />
Mifflin, New York, NY.<br />
Steenbergh, W. F., <strong>and</strong> C. H. Lowe. 1977. Ecology<br />
<strong>of</strong> the saguaro: II reproduction, germination,<br />
establishment, growth, <strong>and</strong> survival <strong>of</strong> the young<br />
plant. National Park Service Monograph Series<br />
No. 8, Washington, DC.<br />
Steidl, R. J. 2003. Monitoring elf owls in <strong>and</strong> near<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, 2000–2002. Unpublished<br />
report to the Western National Parks Association<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Steidl, R. J., <strong>and</strong> A. Knipps. 1999. Effects <strong>of</strong> fire on<br />
Mexican spotted owls in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park.
Unpublished progress report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Tucson.<br />
Stein, B. A. 2002. States <strong>of</strong> the union: Ranking<br />
America’s biodiversity. Natureserve, Arlington,<br />
VA.<br />
Stitt, E. W., C. R. Schwalbe, D. E. Swann, R. C.<br />
Averill-Murray, <strong>and</strong> A. K. Blythe. 2003.<br />
Sonoran Desert tortoise ecology <strong>and</strong><br />
management: effects <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> use change <strong>and</strong><br />
urbanization on desert tortoises. Final report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park.<br />
Stohlgren, T. J., M. B. Falkner, <strong>and</strong> L. D. Schell.<br />
1995a. A modified-Whittaker nested vegetation<br />
sampling method. Vegetatio 117:113–121.<br />
Stohlgren, T. J., J. F. Quinn, M. Ruggiero, <strong>and</strong> G. S.<br />
Waggoner. 1995b. Status <strong>of</strong> biotic inventories<br />
in U.S. national parks. Biological Conservation<br />
71:97–106.<br />
Strong, T. R., <strong>and</strong> C. E. Bock. 1990. Bird species<br />
distribution in riparian habitats in southeastern<br />
Arizona. Condor 92:866–885.<br />
Stutchbury, B. J. 1991. Coloniality <strong>and</strong> breeding<br />
biology <strong>of</strong> purple martins (Progne subis<br />
hesperia) in saguaro cactus. Condor 93:666–675.<br />
Sumner, L. 1951. A biological survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Monument. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Swann, D. E. 1997. Status <strong>of</strong> leopard frogs (Genus<br />
Rana) in the Rincon Mountain Unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park: Results <strong>of</strong> surveys, summer 1996.<br />
Draft final report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Swann, D. E. 1999a. Evaluating approaches for<br />
monitoring terrestrial vertebrates in U.S.<br />
national parks: an example from Tonto National<br />
Monument. MS Thesis, School <strong>of</strong> Natural<br />
Resources, University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Swann, D. E. 1999b. Surveys <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong><br />
amphibians, Rocking K <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park Expansion Area. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Swann, D. E. 2003. Mammal inventory <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Madrona Pools area. Pp. 88–102. In T. Edwards<br />
<strong>and</strong> D. E. Swann, editors. Madrona Pools<br />
PULSE study. Unpublished report, <strong>Saguaro</strong><br />
National Park, Tucson.<br />
Swann. D. E. 2004. A checklist <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>and</strong><br />
mammals <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Arizona.<br />
Western National Parks Association, Tucson.<br />
Swann, D. E., R. C. Averill-Murray, <strong>and</strong> C. R.<br />
Schwalbe. 2002. Distance sampling for Sonoran<br />
desert tortoises. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management<br />
66:943–949.<br />
96<br />
Swann, D. E., V. Gempko, <strong>and</strong> B. F. Powell. 2003a.<br />
Special surveys for lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frogs,<br />
mammals, <strong>and</strong> plants on the remote east slope<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Rincon Mountains. Unpublished report<br />
to the Sonoran Desert <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>and</strong> Monitoring<br />
Program, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, <strong>and</strong> Desert<br />
Southwest Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit,<br />
Tucson.<br />
Swann, D. E., M. J. Goode, <strong>and</strong> C. R. Schwalbe.<br />
2000. <strong>Inventory</strong> <strong>and</strong> recommendations for longterm<br />
monitoring <strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians at<br />
Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona.<br />
Report to the National Park Service, Southern<br />
Arizona Office, Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Swann, D. E., C. C. Hass, D. C. Dalton, <strong>and</strong> S. A. Wolf.<br />
2004. Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting<br />
wildlife: an evaluation <strong>and</strong> review. Wildlife<br />
Society Bulletin 32:1–9.<br />
Swann, D. E., T. M. Mau-Crimmins, <strong>and</strong> E. W.<br />
Stitt. 2005. In search <strong>of</strong> the Madrean Line:<br />
biogeography <strong>of</strong> herpet<strong>of</strong>auna <strong>of</strong> the Sky Isl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
Pp. 149-153. In G. J. Gottfied, B. S. Gebow,<br />
L. G. Eskew, <strong>and</strong> C. B. Edminster, editors.<br />
Connecting mountain isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> desert seas:<br />
biodiversity <strong>and</strong> management <strong>of</strong> the Madrean<br />
Archipelago II. 2004 May 11-15; Tucson, AZ.<br />
Proceedings RMRS-P-36. USDA Forest Service,<br />
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins,<br />
CO.<br />
Swann, D. E., K. Schon, <strong>and</strong> R. E. Wallace. 2003b.<br />
Effects <strong>of</strong> wildl<strong>and</strong> fire on lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard<br />
frogs at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Arizona. Poster<br />
presentation to American Geomorphological<br />
Society Annual Meeting, Denver, CO., October<br />
2003.<br />
Swann, D. E., <strong>and</strong> C. R. Schwalbe. 2001. <strong>Inventory</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> recommendations for long-term monitoring<br />
<strong>of</strong> reptiles <strong>and</strong> amphibians at Coronado National<br />
Memorial, Arizona. Unpublished report to<br />
National Park Service, Southern Arizona Office,<br />
Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Swantek, P. J., W. L. Halvorson, <strong>and</strong> C. R. Schwalbe.<br />
1999. GIS database development to analyze<br />
fire history in southern Arizona <strong>and</strong> beyond, an<br />
example from <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Technical<br />
report no. 61. U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona<br />
National Park Resources Unit, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona, Tucson, AZ.<br />
Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, <strong>and</strong> J. Betancourt. 1999.<br />
Applied historical ecology: using the past to<br />
manage the future. Ecological Applications<br />
9:1189–1206.<br />
Swetnam, T. W., <strong>and</strong> C. H. Baisan. 1996. Fire<br />
histories <strong>of</strong> montane forests in Madrean
orderl<strong>and</strong>s. Pp. 15–16. In effects <strong>of</strong> fire<br />
on Madrean province ecosystems. General<br />
Technical Report RM-GTR-289. USDA Forest<br />
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest <strong>and</strong> Range<br />
Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO.<br />
Taylor, R. C. 1997. Location checklist to the birds<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Chiricahua Mountains. Borderl<strong>and</strong><br />
Productions, Tucson, AZ.<br />
Trombulak, S. C., <strong>and</strong> C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review<br />
<strong>of</strong> ecological effects <strong>of</strong> roads on terrestrial <strong>and</strong><br />
aquatic communities. Conservation Biology<br />
14:18–30.<br />
Tucson Bird Count (TBC). 2005. Accessed from web<br />
on August 4, 2005: http://www.tucsonbirds.<br />
org/index.html.<br />
Turner, D. S., <strong>and</strong> C. S. Funicelli. 2000. Ten-year<br />
resurvey <strong>of</strong> epidermal browning <strong>and</strong> population<br />
structure <strong>of</strong> saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea)<br />
in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Technical Report No.<br />
69. <strong>USGS</strong>, Sonoran Desert Research Station,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arizona, Tucson.<br />
Turner, D. S., P. A. Holm, E. B. Wirt, <strong>and</strong> C. R.<br />
Schwalbe. 2003. Amphibians <strong>and</strong> reptiles<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Whetstone Mountains, Arizona. The<br />
Southwestern Naturalist 48:347–355.<br />
United States Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture (USDA).<br />
2005. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5.<br />
National <strong>Plant</strong> Data Center, Natural Resources<br />
Conservation Service, Baton Rouge, LA.<br />
Accessed on 10 March 2003 from: http://plants.<br />
usda.gov.<br />
Van Auken, O. W. 2000. Shrub invasions <strong>of</strong> North<br />
American semiarid grassl<strong>and</strong>s. Annual Review<br />
<strong>of</strong> Ecology <strong>and</strong> Systematics 31:197–215.<br />
Verner, J., <strong>and</strong> L. V. Ritter. 1983. A comparison <strong>of</strong><br />
transects <strong>and</strong> point counts in oak-pine woodl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
<strong>of</strong> California. Condor 87:47–68.<br />
Warshall, P. 1994. The biopolitics <strong>of</strong> the Mt.<br />
Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciuris hudsonicus<br />
grahamensis). Conservation Biology 8:977–988.<br />
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2005.<br />
Arizona climate summaries for the University <strong>of</strong><br />
97<br />
Arizona. Accessed on 15 February 2005 from:<br />
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.<br />
html.<br />
White, G. C., K. P. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, <strong>and</strong> D.<br />
L. Otis. 1983. Capture-recapture <strong>and</strong> removal<br />
methods for sampling closed populations. Los<br />
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.<br />
Whitmore, R. C. 1975. Habitat ordination <strong>of</strong> breeding<br />
passerine birds <strong>of</strong> the Virgin River valley,<br />
southwestern Utah. Wilson Bulletin 87:65–74.<br />
Whittaker, R. H., <strong>and</strong> W. A. Niering. 1965.<br />
Vegetation <strong>of</strong> the Santa Catalina Mountains,<br />
Arizona: A gradient analysis <strong>of</strong> the south slope.<br />
Ecology 46:429–452.<br />
Willey, D. W. 1997. Life history attributes <strong>of</strong><br />
Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida)<br />
in <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Unpublished report to<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Willey, D. W. 1998a. Effects <strong>of</strong> fire on Mexican<br />
spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) at<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish<br />
Department Heritage Project #I96029 Final<br />
Report. Phoenix, AZ.<br />
Willey, D. W. 1998b. Monitoring Mexican spotted<br />
owl occupancy <strong>and</strong> reproductive status in<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, 1998 field season final<br />
report. Unpublished report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Tucson.<br />
Wirt, E. B, <strong>and</strong> R. H. Robichaux. 2000. Survey<br />
<strong>and</strong> monitoring <strong>of</strong> the desert tortoise Gopherus<br />
agassizii at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park. Unpublished<br />
report to <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Wolf, S. A., <strong>and</strong> D. E. Swann. 2002. Infraredtriggered<br />
photography <strong>of</strong> mammals in the Rincon<br />
Mountain District <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park,<br />
Arizona. Final report to Western National Parks<br />
Association <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Tucson.<br />
Wright, J. W., <strong>and</strong> L. J. Vitt. 1993. Biology <strong>of</strong><br />
the whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus).<br />
Oklahoma Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History, Norman,<br />
OK.
99<br />
Appendix A. List <strong>of</strong> plant species that were observed (O) or collected (X) at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District. Species list derived from species seen<br />
or collected by UA <strong>Inventory</strong> personnel from this study (UAI), specimens located in the University <strong>of</strong> Arizona herbarium (from 1909–1996; UAH), Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987;<br />
B&M), Rondeau <strong>and</strong> Van Devender (1992; R&D), Fishbein et al. (1994a; FIa), Fishbein et al. (1994b; FIb), Fishbein (1995; FI), Fishbein <strong>and</strong> Bowers (1996; F&B), Guertin (1998;<br />
GU), Halvorson <strong>and</strong> Guertin (2003; H&G), long-term monitoring plots 1998–2004 (SNP in prep; LTM), fire-effects monitoring (<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, unpublished data; FEM).<br />
Species in bold-faced type are non-native (from USDA 2004).<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Acanthaceae Anisacanthus thurberi (Torr.) Gray Thurber’s desert honeysuckle X X X O O O O O<br />
Carlowrightia arizonica Gray Arizona wrightwort X X X O O O O<br />
Elytraria imbricata (Vahl) Pers. purple scalystem O<br />
Justicia c<strong>and</strong>icans (Nees) L. Benson Arizona water-willow O<br />
Ruellia nudiflora (Engelm. & Gray) Urban violet wild petunia X O<br />
Siphonoglossa longiflora (Torr.) Gray longflower tubetongue X X X O O O O O<br />
Tetramerium nervosum Nees hairy fournwort X X X O O X<br />
Aceraceae Acer glabrum Torr. Rocky Mountain maple X<br />
Acer glabrum var. neomexicanum (Greene) Kearney & Peebles New Mexico maple X<br />
Acer negundo L. boxelder X<br />
Acer negundo var. interius (Britt.) Sarg. boxelder X<br />
Agavaceae Agave chrysantha Peebles goldenflower century plant O X O O<br />
Agave palmeri Engelm. Palmer’s century plant X X O O O O O O<br />
Agave parryi Engelm. Parry’s agave O<br />
Agave schottii Engelm. Schott’s century plant X O O<br />
Agave schottii Engelm. var. schottii Schott’s century plant X O O O<br />
Yucca baccata var. brevifolia (Schott ex Torr.) L. Benson & Darrow Spanish dagger X O<br />
Yucca elata (Engelm.) Engelm. soaptree yucca O<br />
Yucca elata (Engelm.) Engelm. var. elata soaptree yucca X O<br />
Yucca schottii Engelm. Schott’s yucca O X X O O O O<br />
Aizoaceae Trianthema portulacastrum L. desert horsepurslane X X<br />
Amaranthaceae Amaranthus albus L. prostrate pigweed X X O O<br />
Amaranthus blitoides S. Wats. mat amaranth X<br />
Amaranthus fimbriatus (Torr.) Benth. ex S. Wats. fringed amaranth X X O<br />
Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. carelessweed X X O O X O<br />
Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. Powell’s amaranth X X<br />
Froelichia arizonica Thornb. ex St<strong>and</strong>l. Arizona snakecotton X X X O<br />
Gomphrena caespitosa Torr. tufted globe amaranth X X<br />
Gomphrena nitida Rothrock pearly globe amaranth X X X O<br />
Gomphrena sonorae Torr. Sonoran globe amaranth X X X O O O<br />
Guilleminea densa (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Moq. small matweed X X<br />
Iresine heterophylla St<strong>and</strong>l. St<strong>and</strong>ley’s bloodleaf X X O O O<br />
Tidestromia lanuginosa (Nutt.) St<strong>and</strong>l. woolly tidestromia X O<br />
Anacardiaceae Rhus aromatica Ait. fragrant sumac X<br />
Rhus lancea L. African Sumac X<br />
Rhus trilobata Nutt. skunkbush sumac O O O<br />
Rhus trilobata var. pilosissima Engelm. pubescent squawbush X O<br />
Rhus trilobata var. racemulosa (Greene) Barkl. skunkbush sumac X X
100<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Anacardiaceae Rhus virens var. choriophylla (Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l.) L. Benson evergreen sumac X X<br />
Toxicodendron radicans ssp. divaricatum (Greene) Gillis eastern poison ivy X<br />
Toxicodendron rydbergii (Small ex Rydb.) Greene western poison ivy X O O<br />
Apiaceae Bowlesia incana Ruiz & Pavón hoary bowlesia X X X O O X<br />
Daucus pusillus Michx. American wild carrot X X X O O O O O O<br />
Lomatium nevadense (S. Wats.) Coult. & Rose Nevada biscuitroot X O<br />
Lomatium nevadense (S. Wats.) Coult. & var. nevadense Nevada biscuitroot X X<br />
Pseudocymopterus montanus (Gray) Coult. & Rose alpine false springparsley O X X O<br />
Spermolepis echinata (Nutt. ex DC.) Heller bristly scaleseed X X X O O O O O<br />
Yabea microcarpa (Hook. & Arn.) K.-Pol. false carrot X X O<br />
Apocynaceae Apocynum <strong>and</strong>rosaemifolium L. spreading dogbane X X O<br />
Apocynum cannabinum L. Indianhemp X X X<br />
Haplophyton crooksii (L. Benson) L. Benson cockroachplant X X O O O O O<br />
Macrosiphonia brachysiphon (Torr.) Gray Huachuca Mountain rocktrumpet X<br />
Nerium ole<strong>and</strong>er L. ole<strong>and</strong>er O X<br />
Araliaceae Aralia humilis Cav. Arizona spikenard X X O O<br />
Aristolochiaceae Aristolochia watsonii Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. Watson’s dutchman’s pipe O X X O O O O O<br />
Asclepiadaceae Asclepias angustifolia Schweig. Arizona milkweed X X<br />
Asclepias asperula (Dcne.) Woods. ssp. asperula spider milkweed X<br />
Asclepias glaucescens Kunth nodding milkweed X X O<br />
Asclepias hypoleuca (Gray) Woods. mahogany milkweed X X<br />
Asclepias linaria Cav. pineneedle milkweed O X X O O O O<br />
Asclepias nyctaginifolia Gray Mojave milkweed X X X O O<br />
Asclepias quinquedentata Gray slimpod milkweed X X<br />
Asclepias tuberosa L. butterfly milkweed X<br />
Asclepias tuberosa ssp. interior Woods. butterfly milkweed X O<br />
Cynanchum arizonicum (Gray) Shinners Arizona swallow-wort X X X O O O<br />
Funastrum crispum (Benth.) Schlechter wavyleaf twinevine X<br />
Funastrum cynanchoides ssp. cynanchoides (Dcne.) Schlechter fringed twinevine X O<br />
Funastrum cynanchoides ssp. heterophyllum (Vail) Kartesz, comb.<br />
Hartweg’s twinevine X X X O O O O<br />
nov. ined.<br />
Matelea arizonica (Gray) Shinners Arizona milkvine X X O O O O<br />
Matelea parvifolia (Torr.) Woods. spearleaf X X O X<br />
Matelea producta (Torr.) Woods. Texas milkvine X<br />
Aspleniaceae Asplenium trichomanes L. maidenhair spleenwort X X<br />
Asteraceae Achillea millefolium L. common yarrow X<br />
Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis DC. western yarrow X O<br />
Acourtia nana (Gray) Reveal & King dwarf desertpeony X X O O O<br />
Acourtia thurberi (Gray) Reveal & King Thurber’s desertpeony X X O O O<br />
Acourtia wrightii (Gray) Reveal & King brownfoot O X X O O O O<br />
Adenophyllum porophylloides (Gray) Strother San Felipe dogweed O X X O O<br />
Ageratina herbacea (Gray) King & H.E. Robins. fragrant snakeroot O X X<br />
Ageratina paupercula (Gray) King & H.E. Robins. Santa Rita snakeroot X X X O O<br />
Ageratina rothrockii (Gray) King & H.E. Robins. Rothrock’s snakeroot X X
101<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Asteraceae Ambrosia ambrosioides (Cav.) Payne ambrosia leaf burr ragweed X X X O O O O O O<br />
Ambrosia confertiflora DC. weakleaf burr ragweed X X X O O O O O<br />
Ambrosia cordifolia (Gray) Payne Tucson burr ragweed O O<br />
Ambrosia deltoidea (Torr.) Payne triangle burr ragweed X X<br />
Ambrosia dumosa (Gray) Payne burrobush X X O<br />
Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Cuman ragweed O O<br />
Anaphalis DC. pearly everlasting O<br />
Antennaria marginata Greene whitemargin pussytoes X O<br />
Antennaria parvifolia Nutt. small-leaf pussytoes X O<br />
Antheropeas lanosum (Gray) Rydb. white easterbonnets X X O O X<br />
Artemisia dracunculus L. tarragon X O<br />
Artemisia dracunculus ssp. dracunculus L. wormwood X X<br />
Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. white sagebrush X X O O O O<br />
Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. albula (Woot.) Keck white sagebrush X O O<br />
Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. sulcata (Rydb.) Keck white sagebrush X<br />
Baccharis brachyphylla Gray shortleaf baccharis X X O O X<br />
Baccharis pteronioides DC. yerba de pasmo X X<br />
Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz & Pavón) Pers. mule’s fat X X X O O O O O O<br />
Baccharis sarothroides Gray desertbroom X X O O O O O O O<br />
Baccharis thesioides Kunth Arizona baccharis X X X O O O O<br />
Bahia absinthifolia Benth. hairyseed bahia O X O O O<br />
Bahia absinthifolia var. dealbata (Gray) Gray Dealbata’s bahia X O O<br />
Bahia dissecta (Gray) Britt. ragleaf bahia X X X O O<br />
Baileya multiradiata Harvey & Gray ex Gray desert marigold O X X O O O<br />
Bebbia juncea (Benth.) Greene sweetbush X O O O<br />
Bebbia juncea var. aspera Greene sweetbush X<br />
Bidens aurea (Ait.) Sherff Arizona beggarticks X X X O O O<br />
Bidens heterosperma Gray Rocky Mountain beggarticks X X X O<br />
Bidens lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s beggarticks X X X<br />
Bidens leptocephala Sherff fewflower beggarticks X X X O<br />
Brickellia amplexicaulis B.L. Robins. earleaf brickellbush X X O O O<br />
Brickellia baccharidea Gray resinleaf brickellbush X X<br />
Brickellia betonicifolia Gray betonyleaf brickellbush X X X O O O O<br />
Brickellia californica (Torr. & Gray) Gray California brickellbush X X X O O O O O<br />
Brickellia coulteri Gray Coulter’s brickellbush X X X O O O O X<br />
Brickellia eupatorioides var. chlorolepis (Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l.) B.L. Turner false boneset X X X<br />
Brickellia gr<strong>and</strong>iflora (Hook.) Nutt. tasselflower brickellbush O X X O<br />
Brickellia pringlei Gray Pringle’s brickellbush X X<br />
Brickellia rusbyi Gray stinking brickellbush X X<br />
Brickellia venosa (Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l.) B.L. Robins. veiny brickellbush X X O O O O O<br />
Brickelliastrum fendleri (Gray) King & H.E. Robins. Fendler’s brickellbush X O<br />
Calycoseris wrightii Gray white tackstem O X O<br />
Carminatia tenuiflora DC. plumeweed X X X O O O O<br />
Carphochaete bigelovii Gray Bigelow’s bristlehead X X X O O
102<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Asteraceae Centaurea melitensis L. Maltese star-thistle X X X O X O<br />
Chaenactis stevioides Hook. & Arn. Steve’s dustymaiden X X<br />
Chaetopappa ericoides (Torr.) Nesom rose heath X<br />
Cirsium neomexicanum Gray New Mexico thistle O X X O O O O X<br />
Cirsium undulatum (Nutt.) Spreng. wavyleaf thistle O X X O<br />
Cirsium wheeleri (Gray) Petrak Wheeler’s thistle X X O<br />
Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq. asthmaweed X X<br />
Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Canadian horseweed O X O O O O O<br />
Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. var. canadensis Canadian horseweed X<br />
Coreocarpus arizonicus (Gray) Blake little lemonhead X X X O O O O<br />
Cosmos parviflorus (Jacq.) Pers. southwestern cosmos O X X O O<br />
Dimorphotheca sinuata DC. gl<strong>and</strong>ular cape marigold O O X<br />
Encelia farinosa Gray ex Torr. goldenhills O X O O O O O O O<br />
Encelia farinosa Gray ex Torr. var. farinosa goldenhills X<br />
Encelia frutescens (Gray) Gray var. frutescens button brittlebush X X<br />
Ericameria cuneata (Gray) McClatchie cliff goldenbush X<br />
Ericameria cuneata var. spathulata (Gray) Hall cliff goldenbush X<br />
Ericameria laricifolia (Gray) Shinners turpentine bush X X X O O O O O X O<br />
Erigeron colomexicanus A. Nels. running fleabane X X O O O<br />
Erigeron divergens Torr. & Gray spreading fleabane X X X O O O O X O<br />
Erigeron flagellaris Gray trailing fleabane X O<br />
Erigeron neomexicanus Gray New Mexico fleabane X X O O O O<br />
Erigeron oreophilus Greenm. chaparral fleabane X X X O O O<br />
Erigeron speciosus var. macranthus (Nutt.) Cronq. aspen fleabane X X<br />
Eryngium L. eryngo X<br />
Evax verna var. verna Raf. spring pygmycudweed X X<br />
Filago arizonica Gray Arizona cottonrose X X<br />
Filago californica Nutt. California cottonrose X X X O X O<br />
Filago depressa Gray dwarf cottonrose X O<br />
Fleischmannia pycnocephala (Less.) King & H.E. Robins. lavender thoroughwort X X<br />
Galinsoga parviflora Cav. gallant-soldier X X<br />
Gamochaeta purpurea (L.) Cabrera spoonleaf purple everlasting X X X O O<br />
Gnaphalium palustre Nutt. western marsh cudweed O<br />
Guardiola platyphylla Gray Apache plant X X X O O O O<br />
Gutierrezia arizonica (Gray) M.A. Lane Arizona snakeweed X X<br />
Gutierrezia microcephala (DC.) Gray threadleaf snakeweed X X X O O<br />
Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Britt. & Rusby broom snakeweed X O X<br />
Gutierrezia serotina Greene late snakeweed X X<br />
Gymnosperma glutinosum (Spreng.) Less. gumhead X X X O O O O<br />
Helenium thurberi Gray Thurber’s sneezeweed X X X<br />
Helianthella quinquenervis (Hook.) Gray fivenerve helianthella X X<br />
Helianthus annuus L. common sunflower X X<br />
Heliomeris longifolia var. annua (M.E. Jones) Yates longleaf false goldeneye X X O O O O X<br />
Heliomeris multiflora var. multiflora Nutt. showy goldeneye O
103<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Asteraceae Heliomeris multiflora var. nevadensis (A. Nels.) Yates Nevada goldeneye X X X<br />
Heterosperma pinnatum Cav. wingpetal X X O<br />
Heterotheca fulcrata (Greene) Shinners rockyscree false goldenaster X<br />
Heterotheca fulcrata (Greene) Shinners var. fulcrata rockyscree false goldenaster X<br />
Heterotheca subaxillaris (Lam.) Britt. & Rusby camphorweed X X X O O O X X<br />
Hieracium carneum Greene Huachuca hawkweed X X X O<br />
Hieracium fendleri Schultz-Bip. yellow hawkweed X O O<br />
Hieracium fendleri var. discolor Gray yellow hawkweed X<br />
Hieracium lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s hawkweed O<br />
Hymenoclea monogyra Torr. & Gray ex Gray singlewhorl burrobrush O O O X<br />
Hymenoclea salsola Torr. & Gray ex Gray burrobrush X X X<br />
Hymenopappus mexicanus Gray Mexican woollywhite X O<br />
Hymenothrix wislizeni Gray TransPecos thimblehead X X<br />
Hymenothrix wrightii Gray Wright’s thimblehead X X X O O O O O<br />
Hymenoxys hoopesii (Gray) Bierner owl’s-claws O X X O<br />
Isocoma coronopifolia (Gray) Greene common goldenbush X<br />
Isocoma tenuisecta Greene burroweed O X X O O O O O O<br />
Koanophyllon solidaginifolium (Gray) King & H.E. Robins. shrubby thoroughwort X X X O O O O O<br />
Lactuca serriola L. prickly lettuce X X X O O O X<br />
Laennecia coulteri (Gray) Nesom conyza X X X O<br />
Laennecia eriophylla (Gray) Nesom X<br />
Laennecia schiedeana (Less.) Nesom pinel<strong>and</strong> marshtail X X O<br />
Laennecia sophiifolia (Kunth) Nesom leafy marshtail X X O<br />
Lasianthaea podocephala (Gray) K. Becker San Pedro daisy X X X O<br />
Lasthenia californica DC. ex Lindl. California goldfields X X O O<br />
Leibnitzia lyrata (D. Don) Nesom Seeman’s sunbonnets X X<br />
Machaeranthera arida B.L. Turner & Horne arid tansyaster O<br />
Machaeranthera asteroides var. asteroides (Torr.) Greene New Mexico tansyaster X X<br />
Machaeranthera canescens var. incana (Lindl.) Gray hoary tansyaster X O O<br />
Machaeranthera gracilis (Nutt.) Shinners slender goldenweed O X X O O O O<br />
Machaeranthera pinnatifida (Hook.) Shinners lacy tansyaster X O O<br />
Machaeranthera pinnatifida var. pinnatifida (Hook.) Shinners lacy tansyaster X X O O<br />
Machaeranthera tagetina Greene mesa tansyaster X X X O O O O X<br />
Malacothrix clevel<strong>and</strong>ii Gray Clevel<strong>and</strong>’s desertd<strong>and</strong>elion X X X O O<br />
Malacothrix fendleri Gray Fendler’s desertd<strong>and</strong>elion X O<br />
Malacothrix glabrata (Gray ex D.C. Eat.) Gray smooth desertd<strong>and</strong>elion X<br />
Malacothrix stebbinsii W.S. Davis & Raven Stebbins’ desertd<strong>and</strong>elion O<br />
Melampodium longicorne Gray Arizona blackfoot O O<br />
Monoptilon bellioides (Gray) Hall Mojave desertstar O<br />
Packera neomexicana var. neomexicana (Gray) W.A. Weber & A.<br />
New Mexico groundsel X X X O O O<br />
Löve<br />
Parthenice mollis Gray annual monsterwort X X X O<br />
Parthenium incanum Kunth mariola O X X O O O<br />
Pectis cylindrica (Fern.) Rydb. Sonoran cinchweed O O
104<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Asteraceae Pectis filipes Harvey & Gray fivebract cinchweed X X<br />
Pectis filipes var. subnuda Fern. fivebract cinchweed X O<br />
Pectis longipes Gray longstalk cinchweed X O<br />
Pectis papposa Harvey & Gray manybristle cinchweed X<br />
Pectis papposa Harvey & Gray var. papposa manybristle cinchweed X<br />
Pectis prostrata Cav. spreading cinchweed X X<br />
Perityle coronopifolia Gray crowfoot rockdaisy X X<br />
Perityle lemmonii (Gray) J.F. Macbr. Lemmon’s rockdaisy X X X O O O<br />
Peucephyllum schottii Gray Schott’s pygmycedar O<br />
Porophyllum gracile Benth. slender poreleaf X X X O O O O O<br />
Porophyllum ruderale (Jacq.) Cass. yerba porosa O<br />
Porophyllum ruderale ssp. macrocephalum (DC.) R.R. Johnson yerba porosa X X X O O<br />
Pseudognaphalium canescens ssp. canescens (DC.) W.A. Weber Wright’s cudweed O X X O O O O X O<br />
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum (Gray) A. Anderb. white cudweed X X X O O X<br />
Pseudognaphalium macounii (Greene) Kartesz, comb. nov. ined. Macoun’s cudweed X<br />
Pseudognaphalium pringlei (Gray) A. Anderb. Pringle’s cudweed X<br />
Pseudognaphalium stramineum (Kunth) W.A. Weber cottonbatting plant X X X O<br />
Pseudognaphalium viscosum (Kunth) W.A. Weber winged cudweed X O<br />
Psilactis asteroides Gray New Mexico tansyaster X O O<br />
Psilostrophe cooperi (Gray) Greene whitestem paperflower O X X O O O O O<br />
Rafinesquia californica Nutt. California plumseed X X<br />
Rafinesquia neomexicana Gray New Mexico plumseed X X O O O<br />
Rudbeckia laciniata L. cutleaf coneflower X X<br />
Sanvitalia abertii Gray Albert’s creeping zinnia X X O O O O<br />
Senecio bigelovii Gray nodding ragwort X O<br />
Senecio bigelovii Gray var. bigelovii nodding ragwort X<br />
Senecio flaccidus var. douglasii (DC.) B.L. Turner & T.M. Barkl. Douglas’ ragwort X X O<br />
Senecio flaccidus var. monoensis (Greene) B.L. Turner & T.M. Barkl. Mono ragwort X X O<br />
Senecio lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s ragwort X X X O O O X<br />
Senecio wootonii Greene Wooton’s ragwort X X O<br />
Solidago canadensis var. scabra Torr. & Gray a Canada goldenrod X<br />
Solidago missouriensis Nutt. Missouri goldenrod X X X O<br />
Solidago rugosa P. Mill. var. rugosa wrinkleleaf goldenrod X<br />
Solidago velutina DC. threenerve goldenrod X X X O O O<br />
Solidago wrightii Gray Wright’s goldenrod X X O<br />
Solidago wrightii var. wrightii Gray Wright’s goldenrod X<br />
Sonchus asper (L.) Hill spiny sowthistle X X X O O O<br />
Sonchus oleraceus L. common sowthistle X X X O O O O O<br />
Stephanomeria pauciflora (Torr.) A. Nels. brownplume wirelettuce X X X O O O O O O<br />
Stevia lemmonii (Gray) Gray Lemmon’s c<strong>and</strong>yleaf X X<br />
Stevia plummerae Gray Plummer’s c<strong>and</strong>yleaf X X<br />
Stevia serrata Cav. sawtooth c<strong>and</strong>yleaf X X O<br />
Stylocline micropoides Gray woollyhead neststraw X X O X<br />
Symphyotrichum falcatum var. commutatum (Torr. & Gray) Nesom white prairie aster X
105<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum praealtum var. praealtum (Poir.) Nesom willowleaf aster X<br />
Tagetes lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s marigold X X X O O O<br />
Tagetes micrantha Cav. licorice marigold X X X O O O<br />
Taraxacum laevigatum (Willd.) DC. rock d<strong>and</strong>elion X X X<br />
Taraxacum <strong>of</strong>ficinale G.H. Weber ex Wiggers common d<strong>and</strong>elion O<br />
Thymophylla pentachaeta var. belenidium (DC.) Strother fiveneedle pricklyleaf X<br />
Thymophylla pentachaeta var. pentachaeta (DC.) Small fiveneedle pricklyleaf X X O O O<br />
Trixis californica Kellogg American threefold O X X O O O O O O<br />
Uropappus lindleyi (DC.) Nutt. Lindley’s silverpuffs X X X O O O O O<br />
Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. f. ex Gray golden crownbeard X<br />
Verbesina encelioides ssp. exauriculata (Robins. & Greenm.) J.R.<br />
golden crownbeard X<br />
Coleman<br />
Viguiera cordifolia Gray heartleaf goldeneye X X X O<br />
Viguiera deltoidea Gray Parish’s goldeneye X<br />
Viguiera dentata var. lancifolia Blake toothleaf goldeneye X X O O O O<br />
Xanthium strumarium L. rough cockleburr X X O O X O<br />
Xanthium strumarium var. canadense (P. Mill.) Torr. & Gray Canada cockleburr X X<br />
Zinnia acerosa (DC.) Gray desert zinnia X X X O O O O O X<br />
Berberidaceae Berberis wilcoxii Kearney Wilcox’s barberry X X X O<br />
Betulaceae Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia (Nutt.) Breitung a thinleaf alder X<br />
Alnus oblongifolia Torr. Arizona alder X X O O<br />
Bignoniaceae Chilopsis linearis (Cav.) Sweet desert willow X X<br />
Tecoma stans (L.) Juss. ex Kunth yellow trumpetbush X X O O<br />
Bixaceae Amoreuxia palmatifida Moc. & Sessé ex DC. Mexican yellowshow X O<br />
Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia (Fisch & C.A. Mey.) G<strong>and</strong>ers common fiddleneck X X X O O O<br />
Amsinckia tessellata Gray bristly fiddleneck X<br />
Cryptantha angustifolia (Torr.) Greene Panamint cryptantha X X O<br />
Cryptantha barbigera (Gray) Greene bearded cryptantha X X X O O O O<br />
Cryptantha micrantha (Torr.) I.M. Johnston redroot cryptantha X X X O O O O<br />
Cryptantha muricata (Hook. & Arn.) A. Nels. & J.F. Macbr. pointed cryptantha X O<br />
Cryptantha muricata var. denticulata (Greene) I.M. Johnston pointed cryptantha X O<br />
Cryptantha nevadensis A. Nels. & Kennedy Nevada cryptantha X X X O<br />
Cryptantha pterocarya (Torr.) Greene wingnut cryptantha O X O O X<br />
Cryptantha pterocarya var. cycloptera (Greene) J.F. Macbr. wingnut cryptantha X<br />
Harpagonella palmeri Gray Palmer’s grapplinghook O X X O O<br />
Lappula occidentalis var. occidentalis (S. Wats.) Greene flatspine stickseed X X O O<br />
Lithospermum cobrense Greene smooththroat stoneseed X X O<br />
Lithospermum multiflorum Torr. ex Gray manyflowered stoneseed X X O<br />
Macromeria viridiflora DC. giant-trumpets X X<br />
Pectocarya heterocarpa (I.M. Johnston) I.M. Johnston chuckwalla combseed X X<br />
Pectocarya platycarpa (Munz & Johnston) Munz & Johnston broadfruit combseed O X X O O O<br />
Pectocarya recurvata I.M. Johnston curvenut combseed O X X O O O<br />
Pectocarya setosa Gray moth combseed O<br />
Plagiobothrys arizonicus (Gray) Greene ex Gray Arizona popcornflower X X X O X
106<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Boraginaceae Plagiobothrys collinus (Phil.) I.M. Johnston Cooper’s popcornflower X X O O<br />
Plagiobothrys pringlei Greene Pringle’s popcornflower X X X<br />
Plagiobothrys tenellus (Nutt. ex Hook.) Gray Pacific popcornflower X X<br />
Tiquilia canescens (DC.) A. Richards. woody crinklemat X X O X<br />
Brassicaceae Arabis perennans S. Wats. perennial rockcress X X O O O X O<br />
Brassica tournefortii Gouan Asian mustard X X X<br />
Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. shepherd’s purse X X O X<br />
Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt. western tansymustard X X X O O X O<br />
Dimorphocarpa wislizeni (Engelm.) Rollins touristplant O<br />
Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray wedgeleaf draba O X O<br />
Draba cuneifolia var. integrifolia S. Wats. wedgeleaf draba X X<br />
Draba helleriana Greene Heller’s draba O<br />
Draba helleriana var. bifurcata C.L. Hitchc. Heller’s draba X<br />
Draba petrophila Greene var. petrophila Santa Rita Mountain draba X O<br />
Dryopetalon runcinatum Gray rockmustard X X O<br />
Guillenia lasiophylla (Hook. & Arn.) Greene California mustard X X O X<br />
Lepidium lasiocarpum Nutt. shaggyfruit pepperweed O X X O X<br />
Lepidium thurberi Woot. Thurber’s pepperweed X X X<br />
Lepidium virginicum L. Virginia pepperweed X O<br />
Lepidium virginicum var. medium (Greene) C.L. Hitchc. medium pepperweed X X O O O<br />
Lesquerella gordonii (Gray) S. Wats. Gordon’s bladderpod X X O X<br />
Pennellia longifolia (Benth.) Rollins longleaf mock thelypody X X<br />
Pennellia micrantha (Gray) Nieuwl. mountain mock thelypody X X X O<br />
Schoenocrambe linearifolia (Gray) Rollins slimleaf plainsmustard X X X O O O O<br />
Sisymbrium irio L. London rocket X X X O O O X O<br />
Streptanthus carinatus C. Wright ex Gray lyreleaf jewelflower O<br />
Streptanthus carinatus ssp. arizonicus (S. Wats.) Kruckeberg,<br />
lyreleaf jewelflower O X<br />
Rodman & Worthington<br />
Thelypodium Endl. thelypody X<br />
Thlaspi montanum var. fendleri (Gray) P. Holmgren Fendler’s pennycress X X<br />
Thysanocarpus curvipes Hook. s<strong>and</strong> fringepod O X X O O O X<br />
Cactaceae Carnegiea gigantea (Engelm.) Britt. & Rose saguaro X X O O O O O O O<br />
Echinocereus coccineus Engelm. scarlet hedgehog cactus X O O<br />
Echinocereus coccineus Engelm. var. coccineus scarlet hedgehog cactus X<br />
Echinocereus fendleri (Engelm.) F. Seitz pinkflower hedgehog cactus X O<br />
Echinocereus fendleri var. fasciculatus (Engelm. ex B.D. Jackson)<br />
pinkflower hedgehog cactus O X O O O O O O<br />
N.P. Taylor<br />
Echinocereus fendleri var. rectispinus (Peebles) L. Benson pinkflower hedgehog cactus O<br />
Echinocereus pectinatus (Scheidw.) Engelm. rainbow cactus O<br />
Echinocereus rigidissimus (Engelm.) Haage f. rainbow hedgehog cactus X X O O<br />
Echinocereus triglochidiatus Engelm. kingcup cactus O<br />
Escobaria vivipara var. bisbeeana (Orcutt) D.R. Hunt Bisbee spinystar X O O<br />
Escobaria vivipara var. vivipara (Nutt.) Buxbaum spinystar O<br />
Ferocactus wislizeni (Engelm.) Britt. & Rose c<strong>and</strong>y barrelcactus X X O O O O O O O
107<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Cactaceae Mammillaria grahamii Engelm. Graham’s nipple cactus O O O<br />
Mammillaria grahamii var. grahamii Engelm. Graham’s nipple cactus O X O O<br />
Mammillaria grahamii var. oliviae (Orcutt) L. Benson Graham’s nipple cactus X O O O<br />
Mammillaria heyderi var. macdougalii (Rose) L. Benson Macdougal’s nipple cactus X O O O<br />
Mammillaria viridiflora (Britt. & Rose) Bödecker greenflower nipple cactus X X O<br />
Opuntia acanthocarpa Engelm. & Bigelow buckhorn cholla O O<br />
Opuntia arbuscula Engelm. Arizona pencil cholla X O O O<br />
Opuntia basilaris Engelm. & Bigelow beavertail pricklypear O<br />
Opuntia bigelovii Engelm. teddybear cholla O X O O O O O O<br />
Opuntia chlorotica Engelm. & Bigelow dollarjoint pricklypear X O O O O O<br />
Opuntia engelmannii Salm-Dyck cactus apple O O O O O O<br />
Opuntia engelmannii Salm-Dyck var. engelmannii cactus apple X O<br />
Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) P. Mill. tuna cactus O<br />
Opuntia fulgida Engelm. jumping cholla O X O O<br />
Opuntia fulgida Engelm. var. fulgida jumping cholla X O O O O<br />
Opuntia fulgida var. mamillata (Schott ex Engelm.) Coult. jumping cholla X O O O O O<br />
Opuntia leptocaulis DC. Christmas cactus O X O O O<br />
Opuntia phaeacantha Engelm. tulip pricklypear O X O O O O O O<br />
Opuntia phaeacantha var. laevis (Coult.) L. Benson tulip pricklypear X O<br />
Opuntia phaeacantha var. major Engelm. Mojave pricklypear X O O<br />
Opuntia spinosior (Engelm.) Toumey walkingstick cactus X X O O O O<br />
Opuntia versicolor Engelm. ex Coult. staghorn cholla O X X O O O O O O O<br />
Opuntia ×tetracantha Toumey (pro sp.) [acanthocarpa × leptocaulis] X<br />
Peniocereus greggii var. transmontanus (Engelm.) Backeberg nightblooming cereus X<br />
Campanulaceae Lobelia anatina F. Wimmer Apache lobelia X X<br />
Lobelia cardinalis L. cardinalflower X X<br />
Nemacladus gl<strong>and</strong>uliferus Jepson gl<strong>and</strong>ular threadplant O X O<br />
Nemacladus gl<strong>and</strong>uliferus var. orientalis McVaugh gl<strong>and</strong>ular threadplant X<br />
Triodanis holzingeri McVaugh Holzinger’s Venus’ looking-glass O X X O O<br />
Triodanis perfoliata (L.) Nieuwl. clasping Venus’ looking-glass O X O X O<br />
Triodanis perfoliata var. biflora (Ruiz & Pavón) Bradley clasping Venus’ looking-glass X X X O O O<br />
Triodanis perfoliata var. perfoliata (L.) Nieuwl. clasping Venus’ looking-glass X X O<br />
Capparaceae Polanisia dodec<strong>and</strong>ra (L.) DC. redwhisker clammyweed O O<br />
Polanisia dodec<strong>and</strong>ra ssp. trachysperma (Torr. & Gray) Iltis s<strong>and</strong>yseed clammyweed X X O<br />
Caprifoliaceae Lonicera arizonica Rehd. Arizona honeysuckle X X O<br />
Lonicera interrupta Benth. chaparral honeysuckle X X<br />
Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis (L.) R. Bolli common elderberry X X O<br />
Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea (Raf.) R. Bolli blue elderberry X X<br />
Symphoricarpos oreophilus Gray mountain snowberry O X X O O<br />
Arenaria lanuginosa var. longipedunculata Duncan spreading s<strong>and</strong>wort X X<br />
Arenaria lanuginosa ssp. saxosa (Gray) Maguire spreading s<strong>and</strong>wort X X O<br />
Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare (Hartman) Greuter & Burdet big chickweed O<br />
Cerastium gracile Dufour slender chickweed X X O O<br />
Cerastium nutans Raf. nodding chickweed X O
108<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Caryophyllaceae Cerastium texanum Britt. Texas chickweed X O O O<br />
Drymaria leptophylla (Cham. & Schlecht.) Fenzl ex Rohrb. canyon drymary X X O<br />
Drymaria molluginea (Lag.) Didr. slimleaf drymary X O O O<br />
Herniaria hirsuta ssp. cinerea (DC.) Coutinho hairy rupturewort X X<br />
Loeflingia squarrosa Nutt. spreading pygmyleaf O X X O<br />
Sagina decumbens ssp. occidentalis (S. Wats.) Crow western pearlwort X X<br />
Silene antirrhina L. sleepy silene X X X O O O O O<br />
Silene scouleri ssp. pringlei (S. Wats.) C.L. Hitchc. & Maguire simple campion X X<br />
Stellaria nitens Nutt. shiny chickweed X X<br />
Chenopodiaceae Atriplex canescens (Pursh) Nutt. fourwing saltbush X X O O O O O X<br />
Atriplex elegans var. thornberi M.E. Jones wheelscale saltbush X X<br />
Chenopodium berl<strong>and</strong>ieri Moq. pitseed goosefoot X X O<br />
Chenopodium fremontii S. Wats. Fremont’s goosefoot X X O<br />
Chenopodium graveolens Willd. fetid goosefoot O X X O O<br />
Chenopodium incanum (S. Wats.) Heller mealy goosefoot X<br />
Chenopodium incanum var. elatum Crawford mealy goosefoot X<br />
Chenopodium murale L. nettleleaf goosefoot X X<br />
Chenopodium neomexicanum St<strong>and</strong>l. New Mexico goosefoot X O O X<br />
Chenopodium neomexicanum var. palmeri (St<strong>and</strong>l.) T.W. Walters Palmer’s goosefoot X O<br />
Chenopodium pratericola Rydb. desert goosefoot X<br />
Salsola kali L. Russian thistle X<br />
Salsola tragus L. prickly Russian thistle X O<br />
Clusiaceae Hypericum formosum H.B.K. X X<br />
Commelinaceae Commelina dianthifolia Delile birdbill dayflower X X X O O O<br />
Commelina erecta L. whitemouth dayflower X O O O O<br />
Commelina erecta var. angustifolia (Michx.) Fern. whitemouth dayflower X<br />
Tradescantia occidentalis (Britt.) Smyth prairie spiderwort X X X O O O<br />
Tradescantia occidentalis var. scopulorum (Rose) E.S. Anderson &<br />
prairie spiderwort X<br />
Woods.<br />
Tradescantia pinetorum Greene pinewoods spiderwort X X X O<br />
Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis L. field bindweed X<br />
Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L. slender dwarf morning-glory X X O O O O<br />
Evolvulus alsinoides var. angustifolius Torr. slender dwarf morning-glory X O<br />
Evolvulus arizonicus Gray wild dwarf morning-glory X X X O O O O O<br />
Evolvulus nuttallianus J.A. Schultes shaggy dwarf morning-glory X O<br />
Ipomoea barbatisepala Gray canyon morning-glory X X X O O O O<br />
Ipomoea coccinea L. redstar X O X O<br />
Ipomoea costellata Torr. crestrib morning-glory X X X O O O O O<br />
Ipomoea cristulata Hallier f. Transpecos morning-glory X O O<br />
Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. ivyleaf morning-glory X O<br />
Ipomoea plummerae Gray Huachuca Mountain morning-glory X X O<br />
Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth tall morning-glory X X O X O<br />
Ipomoea tenuiloba Torr. spiderleaf X<br />
Ipomoea tenuiloba var. lemmonii (Gray) Yatskievych & Mason spiderleaf X X
109<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Convolvulaceae Ipomoea ternifolia var. leptotoma (Torr.) J.A. McDonald tripleleaf morning-glory X X X O O O O<br />
Jacquemontia pringlei Gray Pringle’s clustervine X X O O O<br />
Cornaceae Cornus sericea ssp. sericea L. a redosier dogwood X<br />
Crassulaceae Crassula connata (Ruiz & Pavón) Berger s<strong>and</strong> pygmyweed O X<br />
Crassula connata var. connata (Ruiz & Pavón) Berger s<strong>and</strong> pygmyweed X X O O O<br />
Graptopetalum bartramii Rose Patagonia Mountain leatherpetal X X X<br />
Graptopetalum rusbyi (Greene) Rose San Francisco River leatherpetal X O<br />
Sedum cockerellii Britt. Cockerell’s stonecrop X X X O O<br />
Crossosomataceae Crossosoma bigelovii S. Wats. ragged rockflower X X O O O O O O<br />
Cucurbitaceae Apodanthera undulata Gray melon loco X X<br />
Cucurbita digitata Gray fingerleaf gourd X X O<br />
Cucurbita foetidissima Kunth Missouri gourd X X<br />
Echinopepon wrightii (Gray) S. Wats. wild balsam apple X X X O O O<br />
Marah gilensis Greene Gila manroot X X X O O X<br />
Cupressaceae Cupressus arizonica Greene Arizona cypress X<br />
Cupressus arizonica Greene ssp. arizonica Arizona cypress X<br />
Juniperus coahuilensis (Martinez) Gaussen ex R.P. Adams redberry juniper X X X<br />
Juniperus deppeana Steud. alligator juniper O X X O O O O O O<br />
Cyperaceae Bulbostylis capillaris (L.) Kunth ex C.B. Clarke densetuft hairsedge X X X O<br />
Bulbostylis funckii (Steud.) C.B. Clarke Funck’s hairsedge O O O<br />
Carex agrostoides Mackenzie grassleaf sedge X O<br />
Carex athrostachya Olney slenderbeak sedge X X<br />
Carex bonpl<strong>and</strong>ii Kunth Bonpl<strong>and</strong>’s sedge O<br />
Carex chihuahuensis Mackenzie Chihuahuan sedge X X O O<br />
Carex foenea Willd. dryspike sedge X<br />
Carex geophila Mackenzie White Mountain sedge X X O<br />
Carex lativena S.D. & G.D. Jones broadvein sedge X<br />
Carex leucodonta Holm Huachuca Mountain sedge X X X O<br />
Carex meadii Dewey Mead’s sedge X<br />
Carex occidentalis Bailey western sedge X X X O<br />
Carex senta Boott swamp carex X X O<br />
Carex squarrosa L. squarrose sedge O<br />
Carex subfusca W. Boott brown sedge X X X<br />
Carex thurberi Dewey Thurber’s sedge X<br />
Carex vallicola Dewey valley sedge X X<br />
Carex vallicola var. rusbyi (Mackenzie) F.J. Herm. Rusby’s sedge X<br />
Cyperus aggregatus (Willd.) Endl. inflatedscale flatsedge X X<br />
Cyperus dipsaceus Liebamann Wright’s flatsedge X X O O<br />
Cyperus esculentus L. chufa flatsedge X X X O O O O X<br />
Cyperus fendlerianus Boeckl. Fendler’s flatsedge X X X O O<br />
Cyperus mutisii (Kunth) Griseb. Mutis’ flatsedge X X X O O O O<br />
Cyperus pallidicolor (Kükenth.) G. Tucker pallid flatsedge X X O O<br />
Cyperus cf. parishii Britt. Parish’s flatsedge O<br />
Cyperus sphaerolepis Boeckl. Rusby’s flatsedge X X X O
110<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Cyperaceae Cyperus squarrosus L. bearded flatsedge X X X O O O O O<br />
Cyperus strigosus L. strawcolored flatsedge X X<br />
Eleocharis montana (Kunth) Roemer & J.A. Schultes mountain spikerush X X X<br />
Eleocharis montevidensis Kunth s<strong>and</strong> spikerush X X X O O<br />
Fimbristylis annua (All.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes annual fimbry X<br />
Lipocarpha micrantha (Vahl) G. Tucker smallflower halfchaff sedge X X O O<br />
Scirpus microcarpus J.& K. Presl panicled bulrush X X<br />
Dryopteridaceae Cystopteris fragilis (L.) Bernh. brittle bladderfern X<br />
Cystopteris reevesiana Lellinger Reeves’ bladderfern X X<br />
Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott male fern X X O<br />
Woodsia cochisensis Windham Cochise cliff fern X O O<br />
Woodsia mexicana Fée phanerophlebia X X O<br />
Woodsia oregana D.C. Eat. Oregon cliff fern O<br />
Woodsia plummerae Lemmon Plummer’s cliff fern X X O O<br />
Elatinaceae Elatine americana (Pursh) Arn. American waterwort X<br />
Elatine brachysperma Gray shortseed waterwort X X<br />
Ephedraceae Ephedra trifurca Torr. ex S. Wats. longleaf jointfir X X O O O<br />
Equisetaceae Equisetum ×ferrissii Clute (pro sp.) ferris horsetail O<br />
Ericaceae Arbutus arizonica (Gray) Sarg. Arizona madrone X X O O<br />
Arctostaphylos pringlei Parry Pringle manzanita X X<br />
Arctostaphylos pungens Kunth pointleaf manzanita O X X O O O O<br />
Euphorbiaceae Acalypha neomexicana Muell.-Arg. New Mexico copperleaf X X X O O O O X O<br />
Argythamnia lanceolata (Benth.) Muell.-Arg. narrowleaf silverbush O<br />
Argythamnia neomexicana Muell.-Arg. New Mexico silverbush X X X O O X<br />
Bernardia incana Morton hoary myrtlecroton X<br />
Chamaesyce abramsiana (L.C. Wheeler) Koutnik Abrams’ s<strong>and</strong>mat X X<br />
Chamaesyce albomarginata (Torr. & Gray) Small whitemargin s<strong>and</strong>mat X X<br />
Chamaesyce arizonica (Engelm.) Arthur Arizona s<strong>and</strong>mat X X<br />
Chamaesyce capitellata (Engelm.) Millsp. head s<strong>and</strong>mat X X X O O O<br />
Chamaesyce dioica (Kunth) Millsp. royal s<strong>and</strong>mat X X<br />
Chamaesyce florida (Engelm.) Millsp. Chiricahua Mountain s<strong>and</strong>mat X X O O O X<br />
Chamaesyce gracillima (S. Wats.) Millsp. Mexican s<strong>and</strong>mat X X O<br />
Chamaesyce hyssopifolia (L.) Small hyssopleaf s<strong>and</strong>mat X X X O O O O X O<br />
Chamaesyce melanadenia (Torr.) Millsp. squaw s<strong>and</strong>mat X X X O O O O<br />
Chamaesyce micromera (Boiss. ex Engelm.) Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. Sonoran s<strong>and</strong>mat X X<br />
Chamaesyce pediculifera (Engelm.) Rose & St<strong>and</strong>l. Carrizo Mountain s<strong>and</strong>mat X X O O O<br />
Chamaesyce polycarpa (Benth.) Millsp. ex Parish smallseed s<strong>and</strong>mat X X O<br />
Chamaesyce prostrata (Ait.) Small prostrate s<strong>and</strong>mat X<br />
Chamaesyce revoluta (Engelm.) Small threadstem s<strong>and</strong>mat X X O<br />
Chamaesyce setiloba (Engelm. ex Torr.) Millsp. ex Parish Yuma s<strong>and</strong>mat X<br />
Croton pottsii (Klotzsch) Muell.-Arg. leatherweed X X<br />
Croton pottsii var. pottsii (Klotzsch) Muell.-Arg. leatherweed X<br />
Euphorbia brachycera Engelm. horned spurge X X<br />
Euphorbia chamaesula Boiss. mountain spurge X X
111<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia cuphosperma (Engelm.) Boiss. X<br />
Euphorbia cyathophora Murr. fire on the mountain X<br />
Euphorbia dentata var. dentata Michx. toothed spurge X<br />
Euphorbia heterophylla L. Mexican fireplant X X X O O O O X<br />
Euphorbia spathulata Lam. warty spurge X X<br />
Jatropha cardiophylla (Torr.) Muell.-Arg. sangre de cristo O X X O O O O O O O<br />
Manihot angustiloba (Torr.) Muell.-Arg. desertmountain manihot X X O<br />
Tragia nepetifolia Cav. catnip noseburn X X X O O O O X O<br />
Tragia ramosa Torr. branched noseburn X<br />
Fabaceae Acacia angustissima (P. Mill.) Kuntze prairie acacia O X O O O O O O O<br />
Acacia angustissima var. suffrutescens (Rose) Isely prairie acacia X X<br />
Acacia constricta Benth. whitethorn acacia O X X O O O O O<br />
Acacia greggii Gray catclaw acacia O X X O O O O O O O<br />
Acacia millefolia S. Wats. milfoil wattle X X<br />
Amorpha californica Nutt. California false indigo X X X<br />
Amorpha fruticosa L. desert false indigo X X X O O O O O O<br />
Astragalus allochrous Gray halfmoon milkvetch X X X O O<br />
Astragalus arizonicus Gray Arizona milkvetch X X X O<br />
Astragalus didymocarpus Hook. & Arn. dwarf white milkvetch X<br />
Astragalus humistratus Gray groundcover milkvetch O<br />
Astragalus nothoxys Gray sheep milkvetch X X O O<br />
Astragalus nuttallianus DC. smallflowered milkvetch X X O O X<br />
Astragalus nuttallianus var. austrinus (Small) Barneby smallflowered milkvetch X<br />
Astragalus tephrodes Gray ashen milkvetch O<br />
Calli<strong>and</strong>ra eriophylla Benth. fairyduster O X X O O O O O O O<br />
Calli<strong>and</strong>ra humilis Benth. dwarf stickpea X O O<br />
Calli<strong>and</strong>ra humilis Benth. var. humilis dwarf stickpea X<br />
Calli<strong>and</strong>ra humilis var. reticulata (Gray) L. Benson dwarf stickpea X X X<br />
Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench partridge pea O O O<br />
Chamaecrista nictitans var. leptadenia (Greenm.) G<strong>and</strong>hi & Hatch partridge pea X X X<br />
Chamaecrista nictitans (L.) Moench ssp. nictitans partridge pea X<br />
Clitoria mariana L. Atlantic pigeonwings X X<br />
Cologania angustifolia Kunth longleaf cologania X X O O O<br />
Cologania lemmonii Gray Lemmon’s cologania X X<br />
Cologania pallida Rose pale cologania O<br />
Coursetia caribaea (Jacq.) Lavin anil falso X O<br />
Coursetia caribaea var. caribaea (Jacq.) Lavin anil falso X<br />
Coursetia gl<strong>and</strong>ulosa Gray rosary babybonnets X X O O O O<br />
Crotalaria pumila Ortega low rattlebox X X O O O<br />
Crotalaria sagittalis L. arrowhead rattlebox X X O<br />
Dalea albiflora Gray whiteflower prairie clover X X X O O O<br />
Dalea exigua Barneby Chihuahuan prairie clover X X<br />
Dalea filiformis Gray Sonoran prairie clover X X X O O O<br />
Dalea formosa Torr. featherplume X X X
112<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Fabaceae Dalea lumholtzii B.L. Robins. & Fern. Lumholtz’s prairie clover X X X<br />
Dalea pogonathera Gray bearded prairie clover X X<br />
Dalea polygonoides Gray sixweeks prairie clover X X<br />
Dalea pringlei Gray Pringle’s prairie clover X X X O O O O X<br />
Dalea pulchra H.C. Gentry Santa Catalina prairie clover X X X O O O O<br />
Dalea versicolor Zucc. oakwoods prairie clover X<br />
Dalea versicolor var. sessilis (Gray) Barneby oakwoods prairie clover X X O O<br />
Dalea wrightii Gray Wright’s prairie clover X X<br />
Desmodium angustifolium (Kunth) DC. grassleaf ticktrefoil X<br />
Desmodium arizonicum S. Wats. Arizona ticktrefoil X X<br />
Desmodium batocaulon Gray San Pedro ticktrefoil X X O O O O O<br />
Desmodium cinerascens Gray spiked ticktrefoil X X O O<br />
Desmodium grahamii Gray Graham’s ticktrefoil X X O O<br />
Desmodium gramineum Gray grassleaf ticktrefoil X<br />
Desmodium neomexicanum Gray New Mexico ticktrefoil X X O<br />
Desmodium procumbens (P. Mill.) A.S. Hitchc. western trailing ticktrefoil X X O<br />
Desmodium procumbens var. exiguum (Gray) Schub. western trailing ticktrefoil X O<br />
Desmodium psilocarpum Gray Santa Cruz Isl<strong>and</strong> ticktrefoil X<br />
Desmodium rosei Schub. Rose’s ticktrefoil X X X O O O O<br />
Erythrina flabelliformis Kearney coralbean X X O O O<br />
Eysenhardtia orthocarpa (Gray) S. Wats. Tahitian kidneywood X X X O O O<br />
Galactia wrightii Gray Wright’s milkpea X X X O O O O O<br />
Indig<strong>of</strong>era sphaerocarpa Gray Sonoran indigo X X<br />
Lathyrus graminifolius (S. Wats.) White grassleaf pea X X O O O<br />
Lathyrus lanszwertii var. leucanthus (Rydb.) Dorn Nevada pea X X O<br />
Lotus greenei Ottley ex Kearney & Peebles Greene’s bird’s-foot trefoil X X O<br />
Lotus humistratus Greene foothill deervetch X X X O O O O O<br />
Lotus plebeius (Br<strong>and</strong>) Barneby New Mexico bird’s-foot trefoil X X X O O O O<br />
Lotus rigidus (Benth.) Greene shrubby deervetch X X O O O<br />
Lotus strigosus (Nutt.) Greene strigose bird’s-foot trefoil O<br />
Lotus strigosus var. tomentellus (Greene) Isely strigose bird’s-foot trefoil X X<br />
Lotus wrightii (Gray) Greene Wright’s deervetch X X X O<br />
Lupinus bicolor Lindl. miniature lupine O<br />
Lupinus concinnus J.G. Agardh scarlet lupine O X O O O O<br />
Lupinus concinnus ssp. orcuttii (S. Wats.) D. Dunn Orcutt’s lupine X O<br />
Lupinus palmeri S. Wats. bluebonnet lupine O X X O<br />
Lupinus sparsiflorus Benth. Mojave lupine O X O O O<br />
Lupinus sparsiflorus ssp. mohavensis Dziekanowski & D. Dunn Mojave lupine X X<br />
Lysiloma watsonii Rose littleleaf false tamarind O X X O O O O O<br />
Macroptilium gibbosifolium (Ortega) A. Delgado variableleaf bushbean X X O O O O O<br />
Marina parryi (Torr. & Gray) Barneby Parry’s false prairie-clover O X X O O O<br />
Melilotus <strong>of</strong>ficinalis (L.) Lam. yellow sweetclover X<br />
Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera (Benth.) Barneby catclaw mimosa X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Mimosa grahamii Gray Graham’s mimosa X X
113<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Fabaceae Nissolia schottii (Torr.) Gray Schott’s yellowhood X O<br />
Parkinsonia florida (Benth. ex Gray) S. Wats. blue paloverde O X X O O O O O<br />
Parkinsonia microphylla Torr. yellow paloverde O X X O O O O O O<br />
Phaseolus acutifolius Gray tepary bean X X O O O<br />
Phaseolus acutifolius var. tenuifolius Gray tepary bean X X O O O<br />
Phaseolus angustissimus Gray slimleaf bean X<br />
Phaseolus maculatus Scheele spotted bean X O<br />
Phaseolus parvulus Greene Pinos Altos Mountain bean X X O<br />
Phaseolus ritensis M.E. Jones Santa Rita Mountain bean X<br />
Prosopis gl<strong>and</strong>ulosa Torr. honey mesquite O O<br />
Prosopis velutina Woot. velvet mesquite O X X O O O O O O O<br />
Rhynchosia senna Gillies ex Hook. Texas snoutbean O<br />
Rhynchosia senna var. texana (Torr. & Gray) M.C. Johnston Texas snoutbean X X X O<br />
Robinia neomexicana Gray New Mexico locust X X X O O<br />
Senna bauhinioides (Gray) Irwin & Barneby twinleaf senna X X<br />
Senna covesii (Gray) Irwin & Barneby Coves’ cassia O X X O O O O<br />
Senna hirsuta (L.) Irwin & Barneby woolly senna X<br />
Senna hirsuta var. glaberrima (M.E. Jones) Irwin & Barneby woolly senna X X O<br />
Sphinctospermum constrictum (S. Wats.) Rose hourglass peaseed O<br />
Tephrosia leiocarpa Gray smoothpod hoarypea X X O O<br />
Tephrosia tenella Gray red hoarypea X X X O O O<br />
Trifolium pinetorum Greene woods clover X X O<br />
Trifolium variegatum Nutt. whitetip clover X X X<br />
Vicia americana Muhl. ex Willd. American vetch X X O<br />
Vicia americana Muhl. ex Willd. ssp. americana American vetch X O<br />
Vicia leucophaea Greene a Mogollon Mountain vetch X<br />
Vicia ludoviciana Nutt. Louisiana vetch X X O O O O<br />
Vicia ludoviciana ssp. ludoviciana Nutt. Louisiana vetch O X X<br />
Vicia pulchella Kunth sweetclover vetch X X O<br />
Zornia gemella Vogel dos hoja zazabacoa de dos hojas X X X<br />
Fagaceae Quercus arizonica Sarg. Arizona white oak X X X O O O O O<br />
Quercus dunnii Kellogg Palmer oak X X<br />
Quercus emoryi Torr. Emory oak X X X O O O O O<br />
Quercus gambelii Nutt. Gambel oak X X O<br />
Quercus hypoleucoides A. Camus silverleaf oak X X O O O<br />
Quercus oblongifolia Torr. Mexican blue oak X X X O O O O O<br />
Quercus rugosa Née netleaf oak X X X O<br />
Quercus toumeyi Sarg. Toumey oak X X<br />
Quercus turbinella Greene Sonoran scrub oak O X X O<br />
Fouquieriaceae Fouquieria splendens Engelm. ocotillo O X X O O O O O O O<br />
Fumariaceae Corydalis aurea Willd. scrambled eggs X O O O<br />
Corydalis curvisiliqua ssp. occidentalis (Engelm. ex Gray) W.A.<br />
Weber<br />
curvepod fumewort X X<br />
Garrya wrightii Torr. Wright’s silktassel O X O O O O
114<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Gentianaceae Centaurium calycosum (Buckl.) Fern. Arizona centaury X X X O O<br />
Centaurium exaltatum (Griseb.) W. Wight ex Piper desert centaury X<br />
Centaurium nudicaule (Engelm.) B.L. Robins. Santa Catalina Mountain centaury X X X O<br />
Frasera speciosa Dougl. ex Griseb. elkweed X X<br />
Gentiana affinis Griseb. pleated gentian X X<br />
Gentianella microcalyx (J.G. Lemmon) J. Gillett Chiricahua dwarf gentian X X X O<br />
Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Hér. ex Ait. redstem stork’s bill X X O O X O<br />
Erodium texanum Gray Texas stork’s bill X O<br />
Geranium caespitosum James pineywoods geranium X X O O<br />
Geranium carolinianum L. Carolina geranium X X X O O<br />
Geranium richardsonii Fisch. & Trautv. Richardson’s geranium X X O<br />
Hydrangeaceae Philadelphus argenteus Rydb. silver mock orange X X X<br />
Philadelphus argyrocalyx Woot. silvercup mock orange X<br />
Philadelphus microphyllus Gray littleleaf mock orange O<br />
Hydrophyllaceae Emmenanthe penduliflora Benth. whisperingbells X X O<br />
Eriodictyon angustifolium Nutt. narrowleaf yerba santa X X X<br />
Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia (Benth.) Greene spotted hideseed X O X<br />
Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia var. bipinnatifida (Torr.) Constance spotted hideseed X O<br />
Eucrypta micrantha (Torr.) Heller dainty desert hideseed X X X<br />
Nama demissum Gray purplemat X<br />
Nama dichotomum (Ruiz & Pavón) Choisy wishbone fiddleleaf X X<br />
Nama hispidum Gray bristly nama X X X O<br />
Phacelia affinis Gray limestone phacelia X X O<br />
Phacelia bombycina Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. Mangas Spring phacelia O X X O<br />
Phacelia caerulea Greene skyblue phacelia X X O<br />
Phacelia crenulata Torr. ex S. Wats. cleftleaf wildheliotrope O<br />
Phacelia cryptantha Greene hiddenflower phacelia X X O<br />
Phacelia distans Benth. distant phacelia X X X O O O<br />
Phacelia egena (Greene ex Br<strong>and</strong>) Greene ex J.T. Howell Kaweah River phacelia X O<br />
Phacelia ramosissima Dougl. ex Lehm. branching phacelia X X O<br />
Iridaceae Sisyrinchium arizonicum Rothrock Arizona blue-eyed grass O<br />
Sisyrinchium cernuum (Bickn.) Kearney nodding blue-eyed grass X X X O O O<br />
Sisyrinchium demissum Greene stiff blue-eyed grass X X O<br />
Sisyrinchium longipes (Bickn.) Kearney & Peebles timberl<strong>and</strong> blue-eyed grass X X<br />
Jugl<strong>and</strong>aceae Juglans major (Torr.) Heller Arizona walnut X X O O O O<br />
Juncaceae Juncus acuminatus Michx. tapertip rush X X O O<br />
Juncus balticus Willd. Baltic rush O<br />
Juncus bufonius L. toad rush X X X O O<br />
Juncus effusus L. common rush X X X O<br />
Juncus effusus var. brunneus Engelm. lamp rush X<br />
Juncus interior Wieg. inl<strong>and</strong> rush X X X O<br />
Juncus marginatus Rostk. grassleaf rush X X O O<br />
Juncus saximontanus A. Nels. Rocky Mountain rush X X X<br />
Juncus tenuis Willd. poverty rush X O O O
115<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Juncaceae Juncus xiphioides E. Mey. irisleaf rush X<br />
Luzula multiflora (Ehrh.) Lej. common woodrush X X X<br />
Krameriaceae Krameria erecta Willd. ex J.A. Schultes littleleaf ratany X X O O<br />
Krameria grayi Rose & Painter white ratany O O<br />
Krameria lanceolata Torr. trailing krameria X X<br />
Lamiaceae Agastache breviflora (Gray) Epling TransPecos giant hyssop X X<br />
Agastache pallidiflora (Heller) Rydb. Bill Williams Mountain giant hyssop O<br />
Agastache wrightii (Greenm.) Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. Sonoran giant hyssop X X<br />
Hedeoma dentata Torr. dentate false pennyroyal X X O O<br />
Hedeoma hyssopifolia Gray aromatic false pennyroyal X X O<br />
Hedeoma nana (Torr.) Briq. dwarf false pennyroyal X<br />
Hedeoma nana (Torr.) Briq. ssp. nana dwarf false pennyroyal X O O<br />
Hedeoma nanum (Torrey) Briq. O X O<br />
Hyptis emoryi Torr. desert lavender O X X O O O O O O<br />
Marrubium vulgare L. horehound X X O O X<br />
Monarda citriodora Cerv. ex Lag. lemon beebalm O<br />
Monarda citriodora ssp. austromontana (Epling) Scora lemon beebalm X X X O<br />
Monarda fistulosa var. menthifolia (Graham) Fern. wild bergamot X X<br />
Monardella odoratissima Benth. mountain monardella X<br />
Salvia arizonica Gray desert indigo sage X X O<br />
Salvia columbariae Benth. chia O X X O O O<br />
Salvia reflexa Hornem. lanceleaf sage X O O<br />
Salvia subincisa Benth. sawtooth sage O<br />
Stachys coccinea Ortega scarlet hedgenettle X X X O O O O<br />
Trichostema arizonicum Gray Arizona bluecurls X X<br />
Liliaceae Allium bigelovii S. Wats. Bigelow’s onion O<br />
Allium bisceptrum var. palmeri (S. Wats.) Cronq. aspen onion X X<br />
Allium geyeri S. Wats. Geyer’s onion X X X O<br />
Allium macropetalum Rydb. largeflower onion X X<br />
Calochortus ambiguus (M.E. Jones) Ownbey doubting mariposa lily X X O O<br />
Calochortus kennedyi Porter desert mariposa lily X O<br />
Dasylirion wheeleri S. Wats. common sotol X X O O O O O O O<br />
Dichelostemma capitatum (Benth.) Wood bluedicks O<br />
Dichelostemma capitatum (Benth.) Wood ssp. capitatum bluedicks O X O O O O<br />
Eche<strong>and</strong>ia flavescens (J.A. & J.H. Schultes) Cruden Torrey’s craglily X X X O<br />
Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum (L.) Link feathery false lily <strong>of</strong> the vally X X<br />
Maianthemum stellatum (L.) Link starry false lily <strong>of</strong> the vally X X O<br />
Nolina microcarpa S. Wats. sacahuista O X X O O O O O<br />
Nothoscordum texanum M.E. Jones Texas false garlic X X<br />
Zephyranthes longifolia Hemsl. copper zephyrlily X X O O<br />
Linaceae Linum lewisii Pursh prairie flax X X X<br />
Linum neomexicanum Greene New Mexico yellow flax X X X O<br />
Loasaceae Mentzelia affinis Greene yellowcomet X O O X<br />
Mentzelia albicaulis (Dougl. ex Hook.) Dougl. ex Torr. & Gray whitestem blazingstar X X O O
116<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Loasaceae Mentzelia asperula Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. Organ Mountain blazingstar X O O O<br />
Mentzelia isolata H.C. Gentry isolated blazingstar O<br />
Mentzelia jonesii (Urban & Gilg) H.J. Thompson & Roberts Jones’ blazingstar X<br />
Mentzelia multiflora (Nutt.) Gray Adonis blazingstar X<br />
Mentzelia nitens Greene shining blazingstar X X<br />
Lythraceae Cuphea wrightii Gray Wright’s waxweed X X O O<br />
Malpighiaceae Janusia gracilis Gray slender janusia O X X O O O O O O<br />
Malvaceae Abutilon abutiloides (Jacq.) Garcke ex Britt. & Wilson shrubby indian mallow O O O O O X<br />
Abutilon berl<strong>and</strong>ieri Gray ex S. Wats. Berl<strong>and</strong>ier Indian mallow X X<br />
Abutilon incanum (Link) Sweet pelotazo X X X O O O O X<br />
Abutilon mollicomum (Willd.) Sweet Sonoran Indian mallow X X O O O O<br />
Abutilon parishii S. Wats. Parish’s Indian mallow X X O O O<br />
Abutilon parvulum Gray dwarf Indian mallow X<br />
Abutilon reventum S. Wats. yellowflower Indian mallow X X X O X<br />
Anoda abutiloides Gray Indian anoda X X X O O O<br />
Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. crested anoda X X O O O O<br />
Gossypium thurberi Todaro Thurber’s cotton X X X O O O O O O<br />
Herissantia crispa (L.) Briz. bladdermallow X X O O O O<br />
Hibiscus biseptus S. Wats. Arizona rosemallow X X O O<br />
Hibiscus coulteri Harvey ex Gray desert rosemallow X X O O O O O O<br />
Hibiscus denudatus Benth. paleface O X O O O<br />
Horsfordia newberryi (S. Wats.) Gray Newberry’s velvetmallow X<br />
Malva parviflora L. cheeseweed mallow X<br />
Rhynchosida physocalyx (Gray) Fryxell buffpetal X O O<br />
Sida abutifolia P. Mill. spreading fanpetals X X X X<br />
Sida spinosa L. prickly fanpetals X<br />
Sphaeralcea ambigua Gray desert globemallow O<br />
Sphaeralcea emoryi Torr. ex Gray Emory’s globemallow X X O<br />
Sphaeralcea fendleri Gray Fendler’s globemallow X X X O O O<br />
Sphaeralcea fendleri ssp. venusta Kearney thicket globemallow X<br />
Sphaeralcea laxa Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. caliche globemallow X X X O O O O<br />
Molluginaceae Mollugo cerviana (L.) Ser. threadstem carpetweed X X O<br />
Mollugo verticillata L. green carpetweed X X O O<br />
Monotropaceae Pterospora <strong>and</strong>romedea Nutt. woodl<strong>and</strong> pinedrops X X<br />
Moraceae Morus microphylla Buckl. Texas mulberry X X O O O O<br />
Nyctaginaceae Allionia incarnata L. trailing windmills O X X O O O O O O<br />
Boerhavia coccinea P. Mill. scarlet spiderling X X X X O<br />
Boerhavia coulteri (Hook. f.) S. Wats. Coulter’s spiderling X X<br />
Boerhavia diffusa L. red spiderling O O O O<br />
Boerhavia erecta L. erect spiderling X X O<br />
Boerhavia gracillima Heimerl slimstalk spiderling X O O<br />
Boerhavia intermedia M.E. Jones fivewing spiderling X X O X<br />
Boerhavia purpurascens Gray purple spiderling X X<br />
Boerhavia sc<strong>and</strong>ens L. climbing wartclub O X X O O O O O
117<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia spicata Choisy creeping spiderling X X<br />
Boerhavia wrightii Gray largebract spiderling X<br />
Mirabilis albida (Walt.) Heimerl white four o’clock X X X O O O<br />
Mirabilis coccinea (Torr.) Benth. & Hook. f. scarlet four o’clock X X X O O O O<br />
Mirabilis comata (Small) St<strong>and</strong>l. hairy-tuft four o’clock X<br />
Mirabilis glabra (S. Wats.) St<strong>and</strong>l. smooth four o’clock O<br />
Mirabilis longiflora L. sweet four o’clock X X O O O<br />
Mirabilis oxybaphoides (Gray) Gray smooth spreading four o’clock O O<br />
Oleaceae Fraxinus anomala Torr. ex S. Wats. singleleaf ash X O<br />
Fraxinus velutina Torr. velvet ash X X O O O O O<br />
Menodora scabra Gray rough menodora X X O O O O<br />
Onagraceae Calylophus hartwegii (Benth.) Raven Hartweg’s sundrops O<br />
Calylophus hartwegii ssp. pubescens (Gray) Towner & Raven Hartweg’s sundrops X<br />
Camissonia californica (Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray) Raven California suncup X X O X<br />
Camissonia chamaenerioides (Gray) Raven longcapsule suncup X X X<br />
Epilobium canum ssp. latifolium (Hook.) Raven hummingbird trumpet X X X O O O O<br />
Epilobium foliosum (Torr. & Gray) Suksdorf California willowherb X X<br />
Gaura coccinea Nutt. ex Pursh scarlet beeblossom X X O<br />
Gaura hex<strong>and</strong>ra ssp. gracilis (Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l.) Raven & Gregory harlequinbush X X O<br />
Gaura mollis James velvetweed X<br />
Oenothera caespitosa Nutt. tufted evening-primrose X X X O<br />
Oenothera elata ssp. hirsutissima (Gray ex S. Wats.) W. Dietr. Hooker’s evening-primrose X O O<br />
Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri (Torr. & Gray) W. Dietr. & W.L. Wagner Hooker’s evening-primrose X X O<br />
Oenothera laciniata Hill cutleaf evening-primrose X X O<br />
Oenothera primiveris Gray desert evening-primrose X X X O O<br />
Oenothera pubescens Willd. ex Spreng. South American evening-primrose X<br />
Orchidaceae Corallorrhiza maculata (Raf.) Raf. summer coralroot X<br />
Corallorrhiza maculata var. occidentalis (Lindl.) Ames summer coralroot X<br />
Corallorrhiza striata Lindl. hooded coralroot X<br />
Hexalectris spicata (Walt.) Barnh. spiked crested coralroot X<br />
Malaxis ehrenbergii (Reichenb. f.) Kuntze Ehrenberg’s adder’s-mouth orchid O<br />
Malaxis macrostachya (Lex.) Kuntze Chiricahua adder’s-mouth orchid X X O<br />
Spiranthes parasitica A. Rich. & Gal. parasitic ladies’-tresses X<br />
Orobanchaceae Orobanche cooperi (Gray) Heller desert broomrape X X<br />
Orobanche fasciculata Nutt. clustered broomrape X O<br />
Oxalidaceae Oxalis albicans ssp. pilosa (Nutt.) Eiten radishroot woodsorrel X X X O O O O O<br />
Oxalis alpina (Rose) Rose ex R. Knuth alpine woodsorrel X X O O O<br />
Oxalis decaphylla Kunth tenleaf woodsorrel X<br />
Oxalis drummondii Gray Drummond’s woodsorrel O<br />
Papaveraceae Argemone polyanthemos (Fedde) G.B. Ownbey crested pricklypoppy O<br />
Eschscholzia californica ssp. mexicana (Greene) C. Clark California poppy X O O<br />
Platystemon californicus Benth. creamcups X O X<br />
Parmeliaceae Usnea arizonica Mot. Arizona beard lichen X<br />
Passifloraceae Passiflora mexicana Juss. Mexican passionflower X X X O
118<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Pedaliaceae Proboscidea althaeifolia (Benth.) Dcne. desert unicorn-plant X<br />
Proboscidea parviflora (Woot.) Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. doubleclaw X X O O<br />
Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana L. American pokeweed O O<br />
Phytolacca icos<strong>and</strong>ra L. X<br />
Rivina humilis L. rougeplant X X O O O O<br />
Pinaceae Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. white fir X O<br />
Pinus arizonica Engelm. var. arizonica Arizona pine X O<br />
Pinus cembroides Zucc. Mexican pinyon O X O O O<br />
Pinus discolor D.K. Bailey & Hawksworth border pinyon O X X O O<br />
Pinus edulis Engelm. twoneedle pinyon O O<br />
Pinus leiophylla Schiede & Deppe Chihuahuan pine O<br />
Pinus leiophylla var. chihuahuana (Engelm.) Shaw Chihuahuan pine X X O O O<br />
Pinus ponderosa P.& C. Lawson ponderosa pine O O<br />
Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum Engelm. ponderosa pine X X O<br />
Pinus strobiformis Engelm. southwestern white pine X X O<br />
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco Douglas fir O<br />
Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco Rocky Mountain Douglas fir X<br />
<strong>Plant</strong>aginaceae <strong>Plant</strong>ago ovata Forsk. desert Indianwheat X X O O<br />
<strong>Plant</strong>ago patagonica Jacq. woolly plantain X X X O O O X O<br />
<strong>Plant</strong>ago virginica L. Virginia plantain X X X O O O O O<br />
Platanaceae Platanus wrightii S. Wats. Arizona sycamore X X O O<br />
Plumbaginaceae Plumbago sc<strong>and</strong>ens L. doctorbush X X X O O O O X<br />
Poaceae Aegopogon tenellus (DC.) Trin. fragilegrass X O O O<br />
Agrostis elliottiana J.A. Schultes Elliott’s bentgrass X<br />
Agrostis exarata Trin. spike bentgrass X X<br />
Agrostis gigantea Roth redtop O<br />
Agrostis scabra Willd. rough bentgrass X X X O O X O<br />
Agrostis stolonifera L. creeping bentgrass X O<br />
Alopecurus carolinianus Walt. Carolina foxtail X X<br />
Andropogon L. bluestem O<br />
Aristida adscensionis L. sixweeks threeawn X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Aristida arizonica Vasey Arizona threeawn O<br />
Aristida californica var. glabrata Vasey Santa Rita threeawn X X<br />
Aristida havardii Vasey Havard’s threeawn O<br />
Aristida purpurea Nutt. purple threeawn X X O O<br />
Aristida purpurea var. longiseta (Steud.) Vasey Fendler threeawn O<br />
Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi (Vasey) Allred blue threeawn O O<br />
Aristida purpurea var. parishii (A.S. Hitchc.) Allred Parish’s threeawn X O<br />
Aristida purpurea var. purpurea Nutt. purple threeawn X X<br />
Aristida purpurea var. wrightii (Nash) Allred Wright’s threeawn X O<br />
Aristida schiedeana var. orcuttiana (Vasey) Allred & Valdés-Reyna Orcutt’s threeawn X X X O O<br />
Aristida ternipes Cav. spidergrass O X X O O O<br />
Aristida ternipes var. gentilis (Henr.) Allred spidergrass X X X O O<br />
Aristida ternipes Cav. var. ternipes spidergrass X X O O O
119<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Poaceae Avena fatua L. wild oat O X X O O O X O<br />
Avena sativa L. common oat X<br />
Blepharoneuron tricholepis (Torr.) Nash pine dropseed X X X O<br />
Bothriochloa barbinodis (Lag.) Herter cane bluestem X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Bothriochloa ischaemum (L.) Keng yellow bluestem X<br />
Bouteloua aristidoides (Kunth) Griseb. needle grama X X O O O O O<br />
Bouteloua barbata Lag. sixweeks grama X X X O O O<br />
Bouteloua chondrosioides (Kunth) Benth. ex S. Wats. sprucetop grama O X X O O<br />
Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. sideoats grama X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Bouteloua eludens Griffiths Santa Rita Mountain grama O O<br />
Bouteloua eriopoda (Torr.) Torr. black grama X X O O X<br />
Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths blue grama X X O<br />
Bouteloua hirsuta Lag. hairy grama X X X O O O O O O<br />
Bouteloua radicosa (Fourn.) Griffiths purple grama X X X O<br />
Bouteloua repens (Kunth) Scribn. & Merr. slender grama X X X O O O O X O<br />
Bouteloua rothrockii Vasey Rothrock’s grama X X O<br />
Bouteloua trifida Thurb. red grama X X<br />
Bromus anomalus Rupr. ex Fourn. nodding brome X<br />
Bromus arizonicus (Shear) Stebbins Arizona brome X X X<br />
Bromus carinatus Hook. & Arn. California brome X X X O O X O<br />
Bromus catharticus Vahl rescuegrass X X<br />
Bromus ciliatus L. fringed brome X X X O<br />
Bromus ciliatus var. richardsonii (Link) Boivin fringed brome X<br />
Bromus rubens L. red brome O X X O O O O O X O O<br />
Bromus tectorum L. cheatgrass X X O<br />
Cenchrus longispinus Walt. Burgrass b<br />
Cenchrus spinifex Cav. coastal s<strong>and</strong>bur O<br />
Chloris crinita Lag. false Rhodes grass X X X<br />
Chloris virgata Sw. feather fingergrass X X O O X O<br />
Cortaderia selloana (J.A. & J.H. Schultes) Aschers. & Graebn. Uruguayan pampas grass O O<br />
Cottea pappophoroides Kunth cotta grass X X O O<br />
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bermudagrass X X X O O O O O X O<br />
Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. Egyptian grass X<br />
Danthonia californica Bol<strong>and</strong>. California oatgrass X X<br />
Dasyochloa pulchella (Kunth) Willd. ex Rydb. low woollygrass X X O O O O O<br />
Dichanthelium acuminatum (Sw.) Gould & C.A. Clark var.<br />
acuminatum X X<br />
acuminatum<br />
Dichanthelium oligosanthes var. scribnerianum (Nash) Gould Scribner’s rosette grass X X X O O<br />
Digitaria californica (Benth.) Henr. Arizona cottontop X X X O O O O O<br />
Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel. southern crabgrass X X<br />
Digitaria cognata (J.A. Schultes) Pilger Carolina crabgrass X X<br />
Digitaria cognata (J.A. Schultes) Pilger var. cognata Carolina crabgrass O<br />
Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. hairy crabgrass X X X<br />
Echinochloa colona (L.) Link jungle rice X X X O O X
120<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. barnyardgrass O O<br />
Elymus arizonicus (Scribn. & J.G. Sm.) Gould Arizona wheatgrass X X O<br />
Elymus elymoides (Raf.) Swezey squirreltail X X O O O O O<br />
Elyonurus barbiculmus Hack. X X O O O<br />
Enneapogon desvauxii Desv. ex Beauv. nineawn pappusgrass X X X O O O O<br />
Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Vign. ex Janchen stinkgrass X X O O O X X<br />
Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees weeping lovegrass O O O X X<br />
Eragrostis echinochloidea Stapf African lovegrass X X X X<br />
Eragrostis intermedia A.S. Hitchc. plains lovegrass X X X O O O O O O<br />
Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees Lehmann lovegrass X X X O O O O O X X<br />
Eragrostis mexicana (Hornem.) Link Mexican lovegrass O X X<br />
Eragrostis mexicana ssp. mexicana (Hornem.) Link Mexican lovegrass X O O O<br />
Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) Nees ex Steud. tufted lovegrass X X O<br />
Eragrostis pectinacea var. miserrima (Fourn.) J. Reeder desert lovegrass X O O<br />
Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) Nees ex Steud. var. pectinacea tufted lovegrass O O O<br />
Eriochloa acuminata (J. Presl) Kunth tapertip cupgrass X O<br />
Eriochloa acuminata var. acuminata (J. Presl) Kunth tapertip cupgrass X X O O O<br />
Eriochloa aristata Vasey bearded cupgrass X X O O O X<br />
Eriochloa lemmonii Vasey & Scribn. canyon cupgrass O<br />
Festuca sororia Piper a ravine fescue X<br />
Glyceria striata (Lam.) A.S. Hitchc. fowl mannagrass X X<br />
Hesperostipa comata (Trin. & Rupr.) ssp. comata needle <strong>and</strong> thread O<br />
Hesperostipa neomexicana (Thurb. ex Coult.) Barkworth New Mexico feathergrass O<br />
Heteropogon contortus (L.) Beauv. ex Roemer & J.A. Schultes tanglehead X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Heteropogon melanocarpus (Ell.) Ell. ex Benth. sweet tanglehead X X O O O<br />
Hilaria belangeri (Steud.) Nash curly-mesquite O X X O O O<br />
Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum (Steud.) Tzvelev smooth barley X X X O<br />
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum (Link) Arcang. leporinum barley X O O<br />
Hordeum pusillum Nutt. little barley X X X O O<br />
Hordeum vulgare L. a common barley X<br />
Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) J.A. Schultes prairie Junegrass X X X O<br />
Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench goldentop grass X<br />
Leptochloa dubia (Kunth) Nees green sprangletop X X X O O O O X O<br />
Leptochloa fusca ssp. fascicularis (Lam.) N. Snow bearded sprangletop X X O<br />
Leptochloa panicea ssp. brachiata (Steudl.) N. Snow mucronate sprangeltop X O O O<br />
Leptochloa panicea ssp. mucronata (Michx.) Nowack mucronate sprangeltop X O<br />
Lycurus phleoides Kunth common wolfstail O O<br />
Lycurus setosus (Nutt.) C.G. Reeder bristly wolfstail X X X O O O O O O<br />
Melinis repens (Willd.) Zizka rose Natal grass O X X O O O O X<br />
Muhlenbergia arizonica Scribn. Arizona muhly O X X O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia dumosa Scribn. ex Vasey bamboo muhly X X O O O X<br />
Muhlenbergia elongata Scribn. ex Beal sycamore muhly X X<br />
Muhlenbergia emersleyi Vasey bullgrass X X X O O O O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia fragilis Swallen delicate muhly X X X O O
121<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Poaceae Muhlenbergia longiligula A.S. Hitchc. longtongue muhly X O<br />
Muhlenbergia microsperma (DC.) Trin. littleseed muhly X X O O<br />
Muhlenbergia minutissima (Steud.) Swallen annual muhly X X O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia montana (Nutt.) A.S. Hitchc. mountain muhly X X<br />
Muhlenbergia pauciflora Buckl. New Mexico muhly X X O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia pectinata C.O. Goodding combtop muhly O<br />
Muhlenbergia porteri Scribn. ex Beal bush muhly O X X O O O O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia ramulosa (Kunth) Swallen green muhly X X<br />
Muhlenbergia rigens (Benth.) A.S. Hitchc. deergrass X X X O O O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia sinuosa Swallen marshl<strong>and</strong> muhly X X X O O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia tenuifolia (Kunth) Trin. slimflower muhly X X O O O<br />
Muhlenbergia texana Buckl. Texas muhly X X O<br />
Muhlenbergia virescens (Kunth) Kunth screwleaf muhly X X X O<br />
Nassella tenuissima (Trin.) Barkworth finestem tussockgrass O<br />
Panicum bulbosum Kunth bulb panicgrass X X X O O O O O<br />
Panicum capillare L. witchgrass X O O<br />
Panicum hallii Vasey var. hallii Hall’s panicgrass O O<br />
Panicum hirticaule J. Presl Mexican panicgrass X X O O O O<br />
Pappophorum vaginatum Buckl. whiplash pappusgrass X X O<br />
Paspalum dilatatum Poir. dallisgrass O<br />
Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link buffelgrass O X O O O O X X O<br />
Pennisetum setaceum (Forsk.) Chiov. crimson fountaingrass X O O O O O X O<br />
Phalaris canariensis L. annual canarygrass O<br />
Phalaris caroliniana Walt. Carolina canarygrass X X X O X<br />
Phalaris minor Retz. littleseed canarygrass X<br />
Phleum pratense L. timothy X X<br />
Piptochaetium fimbriatum (Kunth) A.S. Hitchc. pinyon ricegrass X X O O O O<br />
Piptochaetium pringlei (Beal) Parodi Pringle’s speargrass X X X O<br />
Poa annua L. annual bluegrass X X<br />
Poa bigelovii Vasey & Scribn. Bigelow’s bluegrass X X X O X<br />
Poa fendleriana (Steud.) Vasey muttongrass X X O<br />
Poa pratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass X X O<br />
Poa secunda J. Presl S<strong>and</strong>berg bluegrass X<br />
Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. annual rabbitsfoot grass X X X O O O O X X O<br />
Polypogon viridis (Gouan) Breistr. beardless rabbitsfoot grass X X X O<br />
Schismus arabicus Nees Arabian schismus X X O<br />
Schismus barbatus (Loefl. ex L.) Thellung common Mediterranean grass O X X O O X<br />
Schizachyrium cirratum (Hack.) Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. Texas bluestem X X X O O O O<br />
Schizachyrium sanguineum (Retz.) Alston crimson bluestem X O O<br />
Schizachyrium sanguineum var. hirtiflorum (Nees) Hatch crimson bluestem X X O O<br />
Setaria grisebachii Fourn. Grisebach’s bristlegrass X X O O O<br />
Setaria leucopila (Scribn. & Merr.) K. Schum. streambed bristlegrass X O<br />
Setaria vulpiseta (Lam.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes plains bristlegrass X X X O O O<br />
Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Johnsongrass X X O X
122<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Poaceae Sphenopholis obtusata (Michx.) Scribn. prairie wedgescale X X X O<br />
Sporobolus airoides (Torr.) Torr. alkali sacaton X X<br />
Sporobolus contractus A.S. Hitchc. spike dropseed O X O O X<br />
Sporobolus crypt<strong>and</strong>rus (Torr.) Gray s<strong>and</strong> dropseed X X<br />
Sporobolus texanus Vasey Texas dropseed O<br />
Sporobolus wrightii Munro ex Scribn. big sacaton O O O X<br />
Stipa L. needlegrass O<br />
Trachypogon spicatus (L.) Kuntze spiked crinkleawn X X X O O O O<br />
Tridens muticus (Torr.) Nash slim tridens X X X O O X<br />
Tridens muticus var. muticus (Torr.) Nash slim tridens X<br />
Trisetum interruptum Buckl. prairie false oat X X X<br />
Urochloa arizonica (Scribn. & Merr.) O. Morrone & F. Zuloaga Arizona signalgrass X X X O O<br />
Vulpia microstachys (Nutt.) Munro small fescue X O X<br />
Vulpia microstachys var. ciliata (Beal) Lonard & Gould Eastwood fescue X X O<br />
Vulpia microstachys var. pauciflora (Scribn. ex Beal) Lonard & Gould Pacific fescue O<br />
Vulpia myuros (L.) K.C. Gmel. rat-tail fescue O<br />
Vulpia oct<strong>of</strong>lora (Walt.) Rydb. sixweeks fescue X X X O X O<br />
Vulpia oct<strong>of</strong>lora var. hirtella (Piper) Henr. sixweeks fescue X O<br />
Vulpia oct<strong>of</strong>lora var. oct<strong>of</strong>lora (Walt.) Rydb. sixweeks fescue X O O<br />
Polemoniaceae Allophyllum gilioides (Benth.) A.& V. Grant dense false gilyflower X X<br />
Eriastrum diffusum (Gray) Mason miniature woollystar X X X O O O O<br />
Eucrypta Nutt. hideseed X<br />
Gilia flavocincta A. Nels. lesser yellowthroat gilia X O O<br />
Gilia flavocincta ssp. australis (A.& V. Grant) Day & V. Grant lesser yellowthroat gilia O<br />
Gilia mexicana A.& V. Grant El Paso gilia O<br />
Gilia sinuata Dougl. ex Benth. rosy gilia X X O O<br />
Gilia stellata Heller star gilia X X<br />
Ipomopsis longiflora (Torr.) V. Grant flaxflowered ipomopsis X<br />
Ipomopsis multiflora (Nutt.) V. Grant manyflowered ipomopsis O X X O O O<br />
Linanthus aureus (Nutt.) Greene golden linanthus X X O O O O<br />
Linanthus bigelovii (Gray) Greene Bigelow’s linanthus X X O<br />
Linanthus nuttallii (Gray) Greene ex Milliken Nuttall’s linanthus X X<br />
Phlox gracilis (Hook.) Greene slender phlox O X<br />
Phlox gracilis ssp. gracilis (Hook.) Greene slender phlox X X O<br />
Phlox tenuifolia E. Nels. Santa Catalina Mountain phlox X X O O<br />
Polygalaceae Monnina wrightii Gray blue pygmyflower X X X O O O<br />
Polygala alba Nutt. white milkwort X X X O O<br />
Polygala macradenia Gray gl<strong>and</strong>leaf milkwort X X O<br />
Polygala obscura Benth. velvetseed milkwort X X X O O O<br />
Polygala scoparioides Chod. broom milkwort X X<br />
Polygonaceae Chorizanthe brevicornu Torr. brittle spineflower X O<br />
Eriogonum abertianum Torr. Abert’s buckwheat X X X O X<br />
Eriogonum deflexum Torr. flatcrown buckwheat X<br />
Eriogonum deflexum Torr. var. deflexum flatcrown buckwheat X
123<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Polygonaceae Eriogonum palmerianum Reveal Palmer’s buckwheat X<br />
Eriogonum pharnaceoides Torr. wirestem buckwheat X<br />
Eriogonum pharnaceoides Torr. var. pharnaceoides wirestem buckwheat X O<br />
Eriogonum polycladon Benth. sorrel buckwheat X O X<br />
Eriogonum thurberi Torr. Thurber’s buckwheat O<br />
Eriogonum trichopes Torr. little deserttrumpet X<br />
Eriogonum wrightii Torr. ex Benth. bastardsage X X O O O O<br />
Eriogonum wrightii var. wrightii Torr. ex Benth. bastardsage X X O O O<br />
Polygonum aviculare L. prostrate knotweed X X O<br />
Polygonum douglasii ssp. johnstonii (Munz) Hickman Johnston’s knotweed X X<br />
Polygonum hydropiperoides Michx. swamp smartweed X O<br />
Polygonum persicaria L. spotted ladysthumb X X X<br />
Pterostegia drymarioides Fisch. & C.A. Mey. woodl<strong>and</strong> pterostegia X X O O<br />
Rumex acetosella L. common sheep sorrel X X<br />
Rumex crispus L. curly dock X X O O O X<br />
Rumex hymenosepalus Torr. canaigre dock X X O O O<br />
Polypodiaceae Polypodium hesperium Maxon western polypody X X<br />
Portulacaceae Cal<strong>and</strong>rinia ciliata (Ruiz & Pavón) DC. fringed redmaids X X O O<br />
Cistanthe mon<strong>and</strong>ra (Nutt.) Hershkovitz common pussypaws X X O<br />
Claytonia perfoliata Donn ex Willd. miner’s lettuce O O O<br />
Claytonia perfoliata ssp. perfoliata Donn ex Willd. miner’s lettuce X<br />
Portulaca halimoides L. silkcotton purslane X X O<br />
Portulaca oleracea L. little hogweed X X O O<br />
Portulaca suffrutescens Engelm. shrubby purslane X X X O O O O O X O<br />
Portulaca umbraticola Kunth wingpod purslane X X X<br />
Portulaca umbraticola Kunth ssp. umbraticola wingpod purslane O O<br />
Talinum aurantiacum Engelm. orange fameflower X X<br />
Talinum paniculatum (Jacq.) Gaertn. jewels <strong>of</strong> Opar X X O O O<br />
Talinum parviflorum Nutt. sunbright X X<br />
Primulaceae Anagallis minima (L.) Krause chaffweed X X O<br />
Androsace occidentalis Pursh western rockjasmine X X X O O X<br />
Androsace septentrionalis L. pygmyflower rockjasmine X<br />
Androsace septentrionalis ssp. puberulenta (Rydb.) G.T. Robbins pygmyflower rockjasmine X X<br />
Primula rusbyi Greene Rusby’s primrose X X O<br />
Samolus vagans Greene Chiricahua Mountain brookweed X X X<br />
Psilotaceae Psilotum nudum (L.) Beauv. whisk fern O O<br />
Pteridaceae Adiantum capillus-veneris L. common maidenhair X O O O<br />
Astrolepis cochisensis (Goodding) Benham & Windham Cochise scaly cloakfern X X O O O<br />
Astrolepis cochisensis ssp. cochisensis (Goodding) Benham &<br />
Cochise scaly cloakfern X O O<br />
Windham<br />
Astrolepis integerrima (Hook.) Benham & Windham hybrid cloakfern X X<br />
Astrolepis sinuata (Lag. ex Sw.) Benham & Windham wavy scaly cloakfern X O O O<br />
Astrolepis sinuata (Lag. ex Sw.) Benham & Windham ssp. sinuata wavy scaly cloakfern X X X O O O O<br />
Bommeria hispida (Mett. ex Kuhn) Underwood copper fern X X X O O O O O
124<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Pteridaceae Cheilanthes bonariensis (Willd.) Proctor golden lipfern X X O O O O O O<br />
Cheilanthes covillei Maxon Coville’s lipfern O O O<br />
Cheilanthes eatonii Baker Eaton’s lipfern X X O<br />
Cheilanthes feei T. Moore slender lipfern X X<br />
Cheilanthes fendleri Hook. Fendler’s lipfern X X O O<br />
Cheilanthes lindheimeri Hook. fairyswords X X X O O O O O X O<br />
Cheilanthes wootonii Maxon beaded lipfern X X X O O O O<br />
Cheilanthes wrightii Hook. Wright’s lipfern X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Cheilanthes yavapensis Reeves ex Windham graceful lipfern X O<br />
Notholaena grayi Davenport Gray’s cloak fern X X O<br />
Notholaena lemmonii D.C. Eat. Lemmon’s cloak fern X X X O O<br />
Notholaena st<strong>and</strong>leyi Maxon star cloak fern X X X O O O O O O<br />
Pellaea truncata Goodding spiny cliffbrake X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Pellaea wrightiana Hook. Wright’s cliffbrake X X X O O O O O O<br />
Pentagramma triangularis (Kaulfuss) Yatskievych, Windham &<br />
Wollenweber<br />
Pentagramma triangularis ssp. maxonii (Weatherby) Yatskievych,<br />
Windham & Wollenweber<br />
Pentagramma triangularis ssp. triangularis (Kaulfuss) Yatskievych,<br />
goldback fern<br />
Maxon’s goldback fern<br />
goldback fern<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
O<br />
O O<br />
Windham & Wollenweber<br />
Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn western brackenfern X X<br />
Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Underwood hairy brackenfern O X O<br />
Selaginella underwoodii Hieron. Underwood’s spikemoss O O<br />
Pyrolaceae Chimaphila maculata (L.) Pursh striped prince’s pine X<br />
Ranunculaceae Anemone tuberosa Rydb. tuber anemone X X O O O X<br />
Aquilegia chrysantha Gray golden columbine X X O O<br />
Aquilegia desertorum (M.E. Jones) Cockerell ex Heller desert columbine X<br />
Aquilegia triternata Payson Chiricahua Mountain columbine X O<br />
Clematis drummondii Torr. & Gray Drummond’s clematis X X<br />
Clematis ligusticifolia Nutt. western white clematis X X O O O X<br />
Delphinium parishii Gray ssp. parishii Parish’s larkspur X X<br />
Delphinium scaposum Greene tall mountain larkspur X X O O O O<br />
Myosurus cupulatus S. Wats. Arizona mousetail O X X O<br />
Ranunculus arizonicus J.G. Lemmon ex Gray Arizona buttercup X X<br />
Thalictrum fendleri Engelm. ex Gray Fendler’s meadow-rue O X O<br />
Thalictrum fendleri var. wrightii (Gray) Trel. Wright’s meadow-rue X<br />
Rhamnaceae Ceanothus fendleri Gray Fendler’s ceanothus O X X O<br />
Ceanothus greggii Gray desert ceanothus O X X<br />
Ceanothus integerrimus Hook. & Arn. deerbrush O X X<br />
Condalia correllii M.C. Johnston Correll’s snakewood X X O<br />
Condalia warnockii M.C. Johnston Warnock’s snakewood X X O O O<br />
Condalia warnockii var. kearneyana M.C. Johnston Kearney’s snakewood X O O<br />
Frangula betulifolia ssp. betulifolia (Greene) V. Grub. beechleaf frangula X X X O<br />
Frangula californica ssp. californica (Eschsch.) Gray California buckthorn X X O O
125<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Rhamnaceae Frangula californica ssp. ursina (Greene) Kartesz & G<strong>and</strong>hi California buckthorn X<br />
Rhamnus crocea Nutt. redberry buckthorn O X O<br />
Rhamnus ilicifolia Kellogg hollyleaf redberry X O O O O<br />
Ziziphus obtusifolia (Hook. ex Torr. & Gray) Gray lotebush O O O O O O<br />
Ziziphus obtusifolia var. canescens (Gray) M.C. Johnston lotebush X X O<br />
Rosaceae Agrimonia striata Michx. a roadside agrimony X<br />
Cercocarpus montanus Raf. alderleaf mountain mahogany O<br />
Fragaria vesca ssp. bracteata (Heller) Staudt woodl<strong>and</strong> strawberry X X<br />
Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. oceanspray X<br />
Holodiscus dumosus (Nutt. ex Hook.) Heller rockspirea X X O<br />
Potentilla gl<strong>and</strong>ulosa Lindl. sticky cinquefoil O<br />
Potentilla subviscosa var. ramulosa (Rydb.) Kearney & Peebles Navajo cinquefoil X X O<br />
Potentilla thurberi var. atrorubens (Rydb.) Kearney & Peebles scarlet cinquefoil X O<br />
Prunus serotina var. rufula (Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l.) McVaugh black cherry X X O<br />
Prunus serotina var. virens (Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l.) McVaugh black cherry X O<br />
Prunus virginiana L. chokecherry O<br />
Rosa woodsii var. ultramontana (S. Wats.) Jepson Woods’ rose X<br />
Rosa woodsii Lindl. var. woodsii a Woods’ rose X<br />
Rubus arizonensis Focke Arizona dewberry X<br />
Rubus neomexicanus Gray New Mexico raspberry X X X O<br />
Vauquelinia californica (Torr.) Sarg. Arizona rosewood X X X O O O O O O<br />
Vauquelinia californica (Torr.) Sarg. ssp. californica Arizona rosewood X<br />
Rubiaceae Bouvardia ternifolia (Cav.) Schlecht. firecrackerbush X X X O O O O O<br />
Cephalanthus occidentalis L. common buttonbush X X X O O X<br />
Diodia teres Walt. poorjoe X X O O<br />
Diodia teres var. angustata Gray poorjoe X<br />
Galium aparine L. stickywilly X X O O O X O O<br />
Galium boreale L. northern bedstraw O<br />
Galium fendleri Gray Fendler’s bedstraw X X O<br />
Galium mexicanum Kunth Mexican bedstraw X O<br />
Galium mexicanum ssp. asperrimum (Gray) Dempster Mexican bedstraw X X O O O<br />
Galium microphyllum Gray bracted bedstraw X X X O O O O O<br />
Galium proliferum Gray limestone bedstraw X X X O O O O<br />
Galium wrightii Gray Wright’s bedstraw X X X O O O O<br />
Hedyotis greenei (Gray) W.H. Lewis Greene’s starviolet X X O<br />
Houstonia pusilla Schoepf tiny bluet X<br />
Houstonia wrightii Gray pygmy bluet X X O<br />
Rutaceae Ptelea trifoliata L. common hoptree O<br />
Ptelea trifoliata ssp. angustifolia (Benth.) V. Bailey common hoptree X X<br />
Ptelea trifoliata var. cognata (Greene) Kearney & Peebles pallid hoptree X<br />
Thamnosma texana (Gray) Torr. rue <strong>of</strong> the mountains X X X<br />
Salicaceae Populus fremontii S. Wats. Fremont cottonwood O O O<br />
Populus fremontii S. Wats. ssp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood X X O O<br />
Populus tremuloides Michx. quaking aspen X
126<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Salicaceae Salix bonpl<strong>and</strong>iana Kunth Bonpl<strong>and</strong> willow X X X<br />
Salix exigua Nutt. narrowleaf willow X X X O O O O O<br />
Salix gooddingii Ball Goodding’s willow X X X O O O O O<br />
Salix irrorata Anderss. dewystem willow X<br />
Salix scouleriana Barratt ex Hook. Scouler’s willow X<br />
Salix taxifolia Kunth yewleaf willow X X O O<br />
Santalaceae Com<strong>and</strong>ra umbellata (L.) Nutt. bastard toadflax O<br />
Com<strong>and</strong>ra umbellata ssp. pallida (A. DC.) Piehl pale bastard toadflax O X X O O<br />
Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa (L.) Jacq. Florida hopbush X X X O O O O<br />
Sapindus saponaria L. wingleaf soapberry X O<br />
Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii (Hook. & Arn.) L. Benson western soapberry X X X O O O O O<br />
Sapotaceae Sideroxylon lanuginosum Michx. gum bully X O O<br />
Sideroxylon lanuginosum ssp. rigidum (Gray) T.D. Pennington gum bully X<br />
Saxfragiaceae Fendlera rupicola Gray cliff fendlerbush X X X O O<br />
Heuchera parvifolia var. arizonica Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray littleleaf alumroot O<br />
Heuchera rubescens var. versicolor (Greene) M.G. Stewart pink alumroot X<br />
Heuchera sanguinea Engelm. coralbells O X X O O O O O<br />
Saxifraga eriophora S. Wats. redfuzz saxifrage X X X<br />
Scrophulariaceae Brachystigma wrightii (Gray) Pennell Arizona desert foxglove X X X O O<br />
Scrophulariaceae Castilleja austromontana St<strong>and</strong>l. & Blumer Rincon Mountain Indian paintbrush X X O O<br />
Castilleja exserta (Heller) Chuang & Heckard exserted Indian paintbrush X<br />
Castilleja exserta ssp. exserta (Heller) Chuang & Heckard exserted Indian paintbrush O X<br />
Castilleja integra Gray wholeleaf Indian paintbrush X X<br />
Castilleja lanata Gray Sierra woolly Indian paintbrush X X<br />
Castilleja minor (Gray) Gray lesser Indian paintbrush X X X O<br />
Castilleja tenuiflora Benth. Santa Catalina Indian paintbrush X X X O O O O<br />
Maur<strong>and</strong>ella antirrhiniflora (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Rothm. roving sailor X X O O O O X<br />
Mecardonia procumbens (P. Mill.) Small baby jump-up X X O O O O<br />
Mimetanthe pilosa (Benth.) Greene false monkeyflower X X X O<br />
Mimulus floribundus Lindl. manyflowered monkeyflower X X X<br />
Mimulus guttatus DC. seep monkeyflower X X X O O O O O O O<br />
Mimulus rubellus Gray little redstem monkeyflower X X X O O<br />
Nuttallanthus texanus (Scheele) D.A. Sutton Texas toadflax X X X O O O X O<br />
Pedicularis centranthera Gray dwarf lousewort X X<br />
Penstemon barbatus (Cav.) Roth beardlip penstemon X O O<br />
Penstemon barbatus (Cav.) Roth ssp. barbatus beardlip penstemon X<br />
Penstemon barbatus ssp. torreyi (Benth.) Keck Torrey’s penstemon X O<br />
Penstemon linarioides Gray toadflax penstemon O<br />
Penstemon parryi (Gray) Gray Parry’s beardtongue O X X O O O O O O<br />
Penstemon pseudospectabilis M.E. Jones desert penstemon X<br />
Penstemon pseudospectabilis ssp. connatifolius (A. Nels.) Keck desert beardtongue X<br />
Sairocarpus nuttallianus (Benth. ex A. DC.) D.A. Sutton violet snapdragon O X X O O X<br />
Schistophragma intermedia (Gray) Pennell harlequin spiralseed X O O<br />
Scrophularia parviflora Woot. & St<strong>and</strong>l. pinel<strong>and</strong> figwort X X X O<br />
Stemodia durantifolia (L.) Sw. whitewoolly twintip X X X O O O<br />
Verbascum thapsus L. common mullein O<br />
Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. water speedwell X X
127<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Scrophulariaceae Veronica peregrina L. neckweed X X O O<br />
Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis (Kunth) Pennell hairy purslane speedwell X O<br />
Selaginellaceae Selaginella arizonica Maxon Arizona spikemoss X X X O O O<br />
Selaginella rupincola Underwood rockloving spikemoss O X X O O O O<br />
Simmondsiaceae Simmondsia chinensis (Link) Schneid. jojoba X O O<br />
Solanaceae Chamaesaracha coronopus (Dunal) Gray greenleaf five eyes X X<br />
Chamaesaracha sordida (Dunal) Gray hairy five eyes X<br />
Datura discolor Bernh. desert thorn-apple X X O<br />
Datura wrightii Regel sacred thorn-apple X O<br />
Lycium <strong>and</strong>ersonii Gray water jacket X O<br />
Lycium berl<strong>and</strong>ieri Dunal Berl<strong>and</strong>ier’s wolfberry O O O O O O<br />
Lycium berl<strong>and</strong>ieri var. parviflorum (Gray) Terracc. Berl<strong>and</strong>ier’s wolfberry X<br />
Lycium exsertum Gray Arizona desert-thorn X X O O O O<br />
Lycium pallidum Miers pale desert-thorn X O<br />
Margaranthus solanaceus Schlecht. netted globecherry X X<br />
Nicotiana obtusifolia var. obtusifolia Mertens & Galeotti desert tobacco X O O O O<br />
Physalis crassifolia Benth. yellow nightshade groundcherry X X O O<br />
Physalis crassifolia var. versicolor (Rydb.) Waterfall yellow nightshade groundcherry X O O<br />
Physalis hederifolia Gray ivyleaf groundcherry O X O O O<br />
Physalis hederifolia var. fendleri (Gray) Cronq. Fendler’s groundcherry X X O<br />
Physalis hederifolia var. hederifolia Gray ivyleaf groundcherry X X<br />
Physalis latiphysa Waterfall broadleaf groundcherry X<br />
Physalis pubescens L. husk tomato X<br />
Quincula lobata (Torr.) Raf. Chinese lantern X<br />
Solanum americanum P. Mill. American black nightshade O<br />
Solanum douglasii Dunal greenspot nightshade X X X O O O<br />
Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. silverleaf nightshade X O O<br />
Solanum fendleri Gray ex Torr. Fendler’s horsenettle X X O<br />
Solanum nigrescens Mart. & Gal. divine nightshade X<br />
Sterculiaceae Ayenia compacta Rose California ayenia O X O O O O<br />
Ayenia filiformis S. Wats. TransPecos ayenia X X O<br />
Ayenia microphylla Gray dense ayenia O O O<br />
Waltheria indica L. uhaloa X X<br />
Tamaricaceae Tamarix aralensis Bunge Russian tamarisk X X<br />
Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. saltcedar X X O<br />
Typhaceae Typha domingensis Pers. southern cattail X X O O O O O<br />
Ulmaceae Celtis laevigata var. reticulata (Torr.) L. Benson netleaf hackberry X X X O O O O<br />
Celtis pallida Torr. spiny hackberry O X X O O O O O O<br />
Urticaceae Parietaria hespera Hinton rillita pellitory X X X O O O X<br />
Parietaria hespera Hinton var. hespera rillita pellitory X<br />
Valerianaceae Plectritis ciliosa (Greene) Jepson longspur seablush X<br />
Plectritis ciliosa ssp. insignis (Suksdorf) Morey longspur seablush X O O<br />
Valeriana arizonica Gray Arizona valerian X<br />
Verbenaceae Aloysia wrightii Heller ex Abrams Wright’s beebrush O X X O O O O O O<br />
Gl<strong>and</strong>ularia bipinnatifida (Nutt.) Nutt. Dakota mock vervain X X O O<br />
Gl<strong>and</strong>ularia bipinnatifida var. bipinnatifida (Nutt.) Nutt. Dakota mock vervain X X O O O<br />
Gl<strong>and</strong>ularia gooddingii (Briq.) Solbrig southwestern mock vervain O X X O O<br />
Tetraclea coulteri Gray Coulter’s wrinklefruit X X
128<br />
Family Scientific name Common name UAI UAH B&M R&D FIa FIb FI F&B GU H&G LTM FEM<br />
Violaceae Viola adunca Sm. hookedspur violet X<br />
Viola affinis Le Conte s<strong>and</strong> violet X<br />
Violaceae Viola canadensis L. Canadian white violet X X O<br />
Viola nephrophylla Greene northern bog violet X X<br />
Arceuthobium vaginatum (Willd.) J. Presl pinel<strong>and</strong> dwarf mistletoe X X O<br />
Viscaceae Phoradendron californicum Nutt. mesquite mistletoe O X X O O O O O<br />
Phoradendron capitellatum Torr. ex Trel. downy mistletoe X X O<br />
Phoradendron coryae Trel. Cory’s mistletoe X X O O O O<br />
Phoradendron juniperinum Engelm. ex Gray juniper mistletoe X X O O O<br />
Phoradendron leucarpum (Raf.) Reveal & M.C. Johnston oak mistletoe X<br />
Phoradendron macrophyllum (Engelm.) Cockerell Colorado Desert mistletoe O O<br />
Phoradendron macrophyllum (Engelm.) Cockerell ssp.<br />
macrophyllum Colorado Desert mistletoe X<br />
Phoradendron pauciflorum Torr. fir mistletoe X X<br />
Phoradendron tomentosum (DC.) Engelm. ex Gray Christmas mistletoe X X<br />
Phoradendron villosum (Nutt.) Nutt. Pacific mistletoe O<br />
Vitaceae Cissus trifoliata (L.) L. sorrelvine X X O O<br />
Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Virginia creeper X<br />
Parthenocissus vitacea (Knerr) A.S. Hitchc. woodbine X<br />
Vitis arizonica Engelm. canyon grape X X O O O O<br />
Zygophyllaceae Kallstroemia californica (S. Wats.) Vail California caltrop X X<br />
Kallstroemia gr<strong>and</strong>iflora Torr. ex Gray Arizona poppy X X O<br />
Kallstroemia parviflora J.B.S. Norton warty caltrop X X<br />
Larrea tridentata (Sessé & Moc. ex DC.) Coville creosote bush X X O O O<br />
Tribulus terrestris L. puncturevine X X X<br />
a Cited as extirpated by Bowers <strong>and</strong> McLaughlin (1987) <strong>and</strong> found in the UA Herbarium. All specimens were collected by J.C. Blumer <strong>and</strong> have not been observed since then. We exclude them from<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> species found in the park.<br />
b Found along the Rincon Creek Trail (Danielle Foster, pers. comm.)
129<br />
Appendix B. List <strong>of</strong> amphibian <strong>and</strong> reptile species observed or documented at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District by UA inventory personnel (total<br />
number <strong>of</strong> observations; 2001-2002) or by other survey efforts or lists. Lowe <strong>and</strong> Holm (1991; L&H), Murray (1996; MU), Goode et al. (1998; GO), Bonine <strong>and</strong> Schwalbe<br />
(2003; B&S). Total number <strong>of</strong> observations for UA effort should not be used as a measure <strong>of</strong> relative abundance because these data have not been scaled by survey effort<br />
or area. Species in bold-faced type are non-native. See Appendices E <strong>and</strong> F for additional information on voucher specimens <strong>and</strong> photographs from UA inventory <strong>and</strong> other<br />
collections.<br />
Voucher<br />
Order<br />
Specimen<br />
(S),<br />
Family<br />
Caudata<br />
Scientific name Common name Intensive Extensive Road Incidental Photo (P) L&H MU Go B&S ESA BLM USFS AZ<br />
Ambystomatidae Ambystoma tigrinum tiger salam<strong>and</strong>erb Anura<br />
Pelobatidae Scaphiopus couchii Couch’s spadefoot 25 45 2 P, S X X<br />
Spea multiplicata Mexican spadefoot 1 X<br />
Bufonidae Bufo alvarius Sonoran Desert toad 11 82 194 17 P, S X X X X<br />
Bufo punctatus red-spotted toad 41 275 71 P, S X X X X<br />
Bufo cognatus Great Plains toad 1 X X X<br />
Hylidae Hyla arenicolor canyon treefrog 2 168 80 P, S X X X<br />
Ranidae Rana yavapaiensis lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog 100 37 P, S X X X X X X<br />
Testudines<br />
Rana catesbeiana American bullfrog P, S X<br />
Kinosternidae Kinosternon sonoriense Sonoran mud turtle 26 31 P, S X X X X<br />
Emydidae Terrapene ornata western box turtle Pc X<br />
Testudinidae<br />
Squamata<br />
Gopherus agassizii sonoran desert tortoise 1 14 13 P, S X X X X X X<br />
Gekkonidae Coleonyx variegatus western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko 1 11 29 4 P, S X X X<br />
Hemidactylus turcicus Mediterranean house gecko Pc , Sd UA Survey type Species list or study Conservation designation<br />
Crotaphytidae Crotaphytus collaris eastern collared lizard 2 4 23 P, S X X X<br />
Gambelia wislizenii long-nosed leopard lizard X X<br />
Phrynosomatidae Holbrookia maculata lesser earless lizard 3 5 P, S X<br />
Cophosaurus texanus greater earless lizard 5 35 3 75 P, S X X X X<br />
Callisaurus draconoides zebra-tailed lizard 61 47 P, S X X X<br />
Sceloporus magister desert spiny lizard 22 89 15 P, S X X X<br />
Sceloporus clarkii Clark’s spiny lizard 91 164 70 P, S X X X X<br />
Sceloporus undulatus eastern fence lizard 39 113 79 P, S X<br />
Uta stansburiana common side-blotched lizard 5 102 1 23 P, S X X X<br />
Urosaurus ornatus ornate tree lizard 166 441 2 141 P, S X X X X<br />
Phrynosoma hern<strong>and</strong>esi greater short-horned lizard 10 1 P, S X<br />
Phrynosomatidae Phrynosoma solare regal horned lizard 3 8 11 P, S X X X X<br />
Scincidae Eumeces obsoletus Great Plains skink 1 P X<br />
Teiidae Cnemidophorus burti canyon spotted whiptail 7 P, S X X X X X<br />
a
130<br />
Order<br />
Voucher<br />
Specimen<br />
(S),<br />
Family Scientific name Common name Intensive Extensive Road Incidental Photo (P) L&H MU Go B&S ESA BLM USFS AZ<br />
Squamata<br />
Teiidae<br />
Cnemidophorus sonorae Sonoran spotted whiptail 28 122 124 P, S X X X X<br />
Cnemidophorus flagellicaudus Gila spotted whiptail 13 19 33 P, S X X<br />
Cnemidophorus tigris western whiptail (tiger whiptail) 8 32 2 45 P X X X<br />
Anguidae Elgaria kingii Madrean alligator lizard 2 4 P, S X X<br />
Helodermatidae Heloderma suspectum Gila monster 12 6 25 P, S X X X<br />
Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops humilis western blind snake Pc , Sd X<br />
Colubridae Diadophis punctatus ring-necked snake 1 P X<br />
Phyllorhynchus browni saddled leaf-nosed snake S X<br />
Masticophis flagellum coachwhip 1 3 2 10 P, S X X X<br />
Masticophis bilineatus Sonoran whipsnake 5 6 10 P, S X X X X<br />
Salvadora hexalepis western patch-nosed snake 1 1 1 1 P, S X X<br />
Salvadora grahamiae mountain patch-nosed snake 1 1 P, S X<br />
Pituophis catenifer gopher snake 3 3 P, S X X<br />
Arizona elegans glossy snake X<br />
Lampropeltis getula common kingsnake 1 1 P, S X X X<br />
Lampropeltis pyromelana Sonoran mountain kingsnake 2 1 P X<br />
Rhinocheilus lecontei long-nosed snake 3 6 2 P X<br />
Thamnophis cyrtopsis black-necked garter snake 5 65 38 P X X X X<br />
Sonora semiannulata western ground snake 2 P, S X<br />
Chilomeniscus cinctus variable s<strong>and</strong>snake Pe , S X X<br />
Tantilla hobartsmithi southwestern black-headed snake S X X<br />
Trimorphodon biscutatus western lyre snake Sd UA survey type Species list or study Conservation designation<br />
X X<br />
Hypsiglena torquata night snake 6 1 P, S X X<br />
Elapidae Micruroides euryxanthus Sonoran coral snake 1 1 P, S X<br />
Viperidae Crotalus atrox western diamond-backed rattlesnake 1 48 6 17 P X X X X<br />
Crotalus molossus black-tailed rattlesnake 1 13 1 12 P, S X X X<br />
Crotalus tigris tiger rattlesnake 1 15 8 10 P, S X X X<br />
Crotalus viridis western rattlesnake 2 11 16 P, S X<br />
Crotalus scutulatus Mojave rattlesnake 1 S X<br />
a<br />
a ESA = Species <strong>of</strong> Concern, Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service (in HDMS 2004); BLM = Bureau <strong>of</strong> L<strong>and</strong> Management, “sensitive” species; USFS = U. S. Forest Service,<br />
sensitive species; AZ = Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish, “Wildlife <strong>of</strong> Special Concern”. Data from HDMS (2004).<br />
b Observed by Danielle Foster near Rincon Creek in 2001.<br />
c Don Swann has a photograph from the park in his collection.<br />
d Voucher specimen collected by Don Swann <strong>and</strong> not yet accessioned into the UA herpetology collection (D. Swann, pers. comm.).<br />
e Photograph by Matt Goode (1997) along the Loop Drive (photograph now accessioned in the I&M <strong>of</strong>fice in Tucson).
131<br />
Appendix C. List <strong>of</strong> bird species observed at <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District by UA inventory personnel (2001-2003) or by other survey efforts or<br />
lists. Marshall (1956; MA), Monson <strong>and</strong> Smith (1985; M&S), Freiderici (1998; FR), Boal <strong>and</strong> Mannan (1996; B&M), Short (1996; SH), Powell (1999; P99), <strong>and</strong> Powell (2004;<br />
P04). See text for descriptions <strong>of</strong> UA survey types. Underlined species (scientific names) are neotropical migrants (Rappole 1995) <strong>and</strong> species in bold-faced type are non-native.<br />
Underlined “X” or number in UA incidental column indicates evidence <strong>of</strong> breeding was observed during that study (see Table 5.8 for breeding observations by UA personnel).<br />
UA survey type Survey or species lists Conservation designationa Order<br />
line NocInci- Family<br />
Anseriformes<br />
Scientific name Common name VCP transect turnaldental MA M&S FR B&M SH P99 P04 ESA USFS AZGF APF USFWS<br />
Anatidae<br />
Galliformes<br />
Anas platyrhynchos mallard 4 1<br />
Phasianidae Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey 1 X<br />
Odontophoridae Callipepla squamata scaled quail 1 X<br />
Callipepla gambelii Gambel’s quail 475 89 12 X X X X X X<br />
Cyrtonyx montezumae<br />
Ciconiiformes<br />
Montezuma quail 13 28 X X<br />
Cathartidae Coragyps atratus black vulture X<br />
Cathartes aura turkey vulture 76 26 X X X X X X X<br />
Falconiformes<br />
Accipitridae P<strong>and</strong>eon haliaetus osprey X<br />
Circus cyaneus northern harrier X X<br />
Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk 1 2 X S<br />
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk 21 2 9 X X X X X X X<br />
Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk 5 14 X SC S WSC<br />
Asturina nitida gray hawk 4 1 X SC S WSC<br />
Buteogallus anthracinus common black-hawk 1 X X S WSC P<br />
Parabuteo unicinctus Harris’s hawk 1 X X X<br />
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk X<br />
Buteo albonotatus zone-tailed hawk 9 18 X X X X<br />
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 26 5 19 X X X X X X X<br />
Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk X X SC WSC<br />
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle 4 2 X X<br />
Falconidae Falco sparverius American kestrel 14 4 4 X X X X X X<br />
Falco peregrinus peregrine falconb 4 5 X X X SC WSC BCC<br />
Falco mexicanus prairie falcon 6 X X X<br />
Falco columbarius Merlinc Charadriiformes<br />
Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus killdeer X<br />
Scolopacidae<br />
Columbiformes<br />
Actitis macularia spotted s<strong>and</strong>piper X<br />
Columbidae Columba livia rock pigeon 4<br />
Patagioenas fasciata b<strong>and</strong>-tailed pigeon 15 12 X X X<br />
Zenaida asiatica white-winged dove 872 5 X X X X X X X<br />
Zenaida macroura mourning dove 651 12 20 X X X X X<br />
Columbina inca Inca dove X X X
132<br />
UA survey type Survey or species lists Conservation designationa Order<br />
line NocInci- Family<br />
Columbiformes<br />
Scientific name Common name VCP transect turnaldental MA M&S FR B&M SH P99 P04 ESA USFS AZGF APF USFWS<br />
Columbidae Columbina passerina common ground-dove 13 4 X X<br />
Cuculiformes<br />
Cuculidae<br />
Coccyzus americanus<br />
occidentalis<br />
yellow-billed cuckoo 1 1 X X C S WSC P BCC<br />
Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner 10 13 X X X X X X X<br />
Strigiformes<br />
Tytonidae Tyto alba barn owl 1 X X X<br />
Strigidae Otus flammeolus flammulated owl 7 4 X X<br />
Megascops kennicottii western screech-owl 49 3 X X X X<br />
Megascops trichopsis whiskered screech-owl 1 13 6 X X X<br />
Bubo virginianus great horned owl 20 2 14 25 X X X X X X<br />
Glaucidium gnoma northern pygmy-owl 2 1 X X<br />
Glaucidium brasilianum<br />
cactorum<br />
cactus ferruginous pygmy-owld Athene cunicularia<br />
hypugaea<br />
burrowing owl X SC<br />
Micrathene whitneyi elf owl 116 16 X X X X X BCC<br />
Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl 2 4 X X LT S WSC<br />
Asio otus long-eared owl 1 X<br />
Caprimulgiformes<br />
Caprimulgidae Chordeiles acutipennis lesser nighthawk 2 3 3 X X X X X<br />
Phalaenoptilus nuttallii common poorwill 6 31 20 X X X X X X<br />
Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will 4 26 11 X X X<br />
Apodiformes<br />
Apodidae Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift X<br />
Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift 44 15 X X X X X<br />
Trochilidae Cynanthus latirostris broad-billed hummingbird 36 11 X X X X X<br />
Eugenes fulgens magnificent hummingbird 4 4 X X<br />
Archilochus alex<strong>and</strong>ri black-chinned hummingbird 67 12 X X X X X X X<br />
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird 22 1 19 X X<br />
Calypte costae Costa’s hummingbird 18 1 X X X X P<br />
Stellula calliope calliope hummingbird X<br />
Selasphorus platycercus broad-tailed hummingbird 46 10 X X X<br />
Selasphorus rufus rufous hummingbird 4 1 X<br />
Trogoniformes<br />
Trogonidae<br />
Coraciiformes<br />
Trogon elegans elegant trogon 4 1 WSC<br />
Alcedinidae Ceryle alcyon belted kingfisher 1 2 X WSC<br />
Picidae Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker 62 21 X X X<br />
Melanerpes uropygialis Gila woodpecker 469 69 7 X X X X X X BCC<br />
Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker X
133<br />
UA survey type Survey or species lists Conservation designationa Order<br />
line NocInci- Family<br />
Coraciiformes<br />
Scientific name Common name VCP transect turnaldental MA M&S FR B&M SH P99 P04 ESA USFS AZGF APF USFWS<br />
Picidae Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker X<br />
Sphyrapicus nuchalis red-naped sapsucker 1 3<br />
Picoides scalaris ladder-backed woodpecker 133 29 3 X X X X X X X<br />
Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker 35 12 X X X<br />
Picoides arizonae Arizona woodpecker 12 13 X X<br />
Colaptes auratus northern flicker 53 13 6 X X X X X X<br />
Colaptes chrysoides gilded flicker 63 15 5 X X X X P BCC<br />
Passeriformes<br />
Tyrannidae Camptostoma imberbe northern beardless-tyrannulet 22 3 X X X X<br />
Contopus cooperi olive-sided flycatcher 1 X SC<br />
Contopus pertinax greater pewee 35 7 X X X<br />
Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee 105 73 X X X<br />
Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher 2 X WSC<br />
Empidonax hammondii Hammond’s flycatcher 3 X<br />
Empidonax wrightii gray flycatcher 6 1 X X X<br />
Empidonax oberholseri dusky flycatcher 1 X X<br />
Empidonax difficilis pacific-slope flycatcher 1<br />
Empidonax fulvifrons buff-breasted flycatcher 4 Xi SC WSC<br />
Empidonax occidentalis cordilleran flycatcher 60 7 X<br />
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe 14 1 14 X X X X X<br />
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe 2 5 X X X X<br />
Pyrocephalus rubinus vermilion flycatcher 25 4 X X X X X<br />
Myiarchus tuberculifer dusky-capped flycatcher 63 12 X X X<br />
Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher 462 1 26 X X X X X X X<br />
Myiarchus tyrannulus brown-crested flycatcher 297 16 X X X X X X<br />
Myiodynastes luteiventris sulphur-bellied flycatcher 8 6<br />
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird 48 30 X X X X X<br />
Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird 15 2 X X X<br />
Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike 2 2 8 X X X X SC S<br />
Vireonidae Vireo bellii Bell’s vireo 194 28 X X X X X X S BCC<br />
Vireo vicinior gray vireo 1 X X<br />
Vireonidae Vireo plumbeus plumbeous vireo 66 17 X X X<br />
Vireo huttoni Hutton’s vireo 54 33 X X X X X<br />
Vireo gilvus warbling vireo 13 7 X X X X X<br />
Corvidae Cyanocitta stelleri Steller’s jay 62 4 X X X<br />
Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay 33 23 12 X X X X<br />
Aphelocoma ultramarina Mexican jay 207 6 46 X X<br />
Gymnorhinus<br />
cyanocephalus<br />
pinyon jay 1<br />
Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker X<br />
Corvus corax common raven 71 14 19 X X X X X X X
134<br />
UA survey type Survey or species lists Conservation designationa Order<br />
line NocInci- Family<br />
Passeriformes<br />
Scientific name Common name VCP transect turnaldental MA M&S FR B&M SH P99 P04 ESA USFS AZGF APF USFWS<br />
Hirundinidae Progne subis purple martin 151 16 X X X X X X P<br />
Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow X<br />
Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow 74 4 23 X X X X X<br />
Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow 2 X<br />
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow X<br />
Paridae Poecile gambeli mountain chickadee 60 12 X X X<br />
Baeolophus wollweberi bridled titmouse 50 22 45 X X X X X<br />
Baeolphus ridgwayi juniper titmouse 2 1 X<br />
Remizidae Auriparus flaviceps verdin 359 53 6 X X X X X X<br />
Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus bushtit 105 33 72 X X X X<br />
Sittidae Sitta canadensis red-breasted nuthatch 7 X<br />
Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch 87 1 18 X X X<br />
Sitta pygmaea pygmy nuthatch 24 5 X X X<br />
Certhiidae Certhia americana brown creeper 18 4 X X X<br />
Troglodytidae<br />
Campylorhynchus<br />
brunneicapillus<br />
cactus wren 408 90 3 X X X X X X<br />
Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren 54 7 24 X X X X X X X<br />
Catherpes mexicanus canyon wren 159 2 17 X X X X X X X<br />
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren 474 59 83 X X X X X X X<br />
Troglodytes aedon house wren 51 8 14 X X X X X<br />
Regulidae Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet 3 56 1 X X X X<br />
Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher 71 28 X X X X<br />
Polioptila melanura black-tailed gnatcatcher 78 16 9 X X X X X X<br />
Turdidae Sialia mexicana western bluebird 26 41 20 X X X X X X<br />
Sialia currucoides mountain bluebird X<br />
Sialia sialia eastern bluebird j<br />
Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire 17 1 X X X<br />
Catharus guttatus hermit thrush 64 2 17 X X X X X<br />
Turdidae Turdus migratorius American robin 48 5 4 X X X<br />
Mimidae Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird 104 3 5 X X X X X X<br />
Oreoscoptes montanus sage thrasher X<br />
Toxostoma bendirei Bendire’s thrasher X X<br />
Toxostoma curvirostre curve-billed thrasher 207 61 14 X X X X X X<br />
Toxostoma crissale crissal thrasher 11 9 9 X X X X X X X BCC<br />
Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European starling 3 X X X X X<br />
Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing 4 22 5 X<br />
Ptilogonatidae Phainopepla nitens phainopepla 99 10 10 X X X X X X<br />
Peucedramidae Peucedramus taeniatus olive warbler 23 3 X X X<br />
Parulidae Vermivora celata orange-crowned warbler 8 1 X<br />
Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler 2 X<br />
Vermivora virginiae Virginia’s warbler 41 24 X X X
135<br />
UA survey type Survey or species lists Conservation designationa Order<br />
line NocInci- Family<br />
Passeriformes<br />
Scientific name Common name VCP transect turnaldental MA M&S FR B&M SH P99 P04 ESA USFS AZGF APF USFWS<br />
Parulidae Vermivora luciae Lucy’s warbler 316 7 X X X X X X P<br />
Dendroica petechia yellow warbler 27 X X X<br />
Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler 48 3 10 X X X X X<br />
Dendroica nigrescens black-throated gray warbler 145 31 X X X<br />
Dendroica townsendi Townsend’s warbler 16 4 X X<br />
Dendroica occidentalis hermit warbler 1 X<br />
Dendroica graciae Grace’s warbler 86 16 X X X X<br />
Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler 4 X<br />
Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler 31 7 X X X<br />
Cardellina rubrifrons red-faced warbler 45 14 X X X<br />
Myioborus pictus painted redstart 16 15 X X X<br />
Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat 1 X<br />
Thraupidae Piranga flava hepatic tanager 61 35 X X X<br />
Piranga rubra summer tanager 42 4 X X X X X<br />
Piranga ludoviciana western tanager 116 29 X X X X X X<br />
Emberizidae Pipilo chlorurus green-tailed towhee 33 48 5 X X<br />
Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee 265 28 62 X X X X<br />
Pipilo fuscus canyon towhee 188 79 5 X X X X X<br />
Pipilo aberti Abert’s towhee 55 8 19 X X X X X X<br />
Aimophila carpalis rufous-winged sparrow 74 78 27 X X X X X P BCC<br />
Aimophila cassinii Cassin’s sparrow 1 X<br />
Aimophila ruficeps rufous-crowned sparrow 235 25 37 X X X X X<br />
Spizella passerina chipping sparrow 29 228 47 X X X X X<br />
Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow 31 42 81 X X X X<br />
Spizella atrogularis black-chinned sparrow 68 3 43 X X<br />
Passerculus s<strong>and</strong>wichensis Savannah sparrow X X<br />
Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow 1 4 1 X<br />
Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow 13 30 X X X X X<br />
Amphispiza bilineata black-throated sparrow 209 73 13 X X X X X<br />
Amphispiza belli sage sparrow X<br />
Calamospiza melanocorys lark bunting X X<br />
Passerella iliaca fox sparrow X<br />
Melospiza melodia song sparrow 1 X<br />
Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow 2 6 5 X X X<br />
Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow X<br />
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow 9 26 7 X X X X<br />
Zonotrichia atricapilla golden-crowned sparrow X<br />
Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco 27 2 X X X X<br />
Junco phaeonotus yellow-eyed junco 127 30 X X X<br />
Cardinalidae Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal 229 26 9 X X X X X X
136<br />
UA survey type Survey or species lists Conservation designationa Order<br />
line NocInci- Family<br />
Passeriformes<br />
Scientific name Common name VCP transect turnaldental MA M&S FR B&M SH P99 P04 ESA USFS AZGF APF USFWS<br />
Cardinalidae Cardinalis sinuatus pyrrhuloxia 31 6 9 X X X X X X<br />
Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak X<br />
Pheucticus<br />
melanocephalus<br />
black-headed grosbeak 138 26 X X X X X<br />
Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak 49 6 X X X<br />
Passerina amoena lazuli bunting 13 X X X X<br />
Passerina cyanea indigo bunting 1 5<br />
Passerina versicolor varied bunting 37 12 X X X X<br />
Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird X<br />
Sturnella magna eastern meadowlark 5 1<br />
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark X<br />
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird X<br />
Quiscalus mexicanus great-tailed grackle 1<br />
Molothrus aeneus bronzed cowbird 1 X X X X X X<br />
Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird 202 11 X X X X X<br />
Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole 9 5 X X X X X<br />
Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole 13 8 X<br />
Icterus parisorum Scott’s oriole 106 22 X X X X X<br />
Fringillidae Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s finch X<br />
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch 424 71 16 X X X X X X X<br />
Loxia curvirostra red crossbill 12 X<br />
Carduelis pinus pine siskin 16 5 1 X X<br />
Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch 151 27 21 X X X X X X X<br />
Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch 1 X<br />
Coccothraustes vespertinus evening grosbeak X X<br />
Passeridae Passer domesticus house sparrow 2 X X X<br />
a ESA = Endangered Species Act; U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service; “SC” = “Species <strong>of</strong> Concern”; “C” = C<strong>and</strong>idate for listing, “LT” = Listed as Threatened (HDMS 2004). USFS = U.S.D.A. Forest<br />
Service, “Sensitive species” (HDMS 2004). WSCA = Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department , “ Wildlife <strong>of</strong> Special Concern” (HDMS 2004). APF = Arizona Partners in Flight, “Priority species”; (Latta et al.<br />
1999). U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service, “ Species <strong>of</strong> conservation concern” (HDMS 2004).<br />
b Known to breed in the park (Bailey 1994).<br />
c Found by Jeff Kartheiser.<br />
d Confirmed in Box Canyon on 12 October 1995 by Andy <strong>and</strong> Tani Hubbard.<br />
e Marshall did not observe this species, but reports that Herbert Brown collected a specimen at Manning Camp on 18 August 1911. The current location <strong>of</strong> specimen is unknown.<br />
f Seen by Dan Herrington near Madrona Ranger Station, May 1998.
137<br />
Appendix D. Number <strong>of</strong> observations <strong>of</strong> mammal species by University <strong>of</strong> Arizona <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park <strong>Inventory</strong> personnel by survey type, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National<br />
Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002 (small mammals, bats, <strong>and</strong> observations <strong>of</strong> all taxa) <strong>and</strong> 1999-2005 (infrared-triggered photography). Numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
observations are not scaled by search effort <strong>and</strong> should not be used for comparison among species or survey types. See Appendices E <strong>and</strong> F for additional information on<br />
voucher specimens <strong>and</strong> photographs. Legacy data from: Sumner (1951; SU), Duncan (1990; DU), Davis <strong>and</strong> Sidner (1992; D&S), Sidner <strong>and</strong> Davis (1994; S&D), Bucci (2001;<br />
BU), Sidner (2003; SI) Swann (2003; SW). Survey type = small mammal trapping (SMT), bat netting (BN), infrared-triggered photography (ITP), <strong>and</strong> incidental observations (IO).<br />
Species in bold-faced type are non-native.<br />
Documen-<br />
Survey type tation type Survey or species lists Conservation designation<br />
Order<br />
PhotoSpec- U.S.<br />
Family Scientific name Common name SMT BN ITP IO graphimen SU DU D&S S&D BU SI SW FWSa BLMb U.S.<br />
FSc AZ<br />
G&Fd Didelphimorphia<br />
Didelphidae<br />
Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 2 1 X<br />
Insectivora<br />
Soricidae<br />
Notiosorex crawfordi Crawford’s desert shrew X X<br />
Notiosorex cockrumi Cockrum’s desert shrew 5<br />
Chiroptera<br />
Phyllostomidae<br />
Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long-tongued bat 1 X X SC S WSC<br />
Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae southern long-nosed bat 1 1 X LE S WSC<br />
Vespertilionidae Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis X X SC<br />
Myotis auriculus southwestern myotis 4 2 X X<br />
Myotis velifer cave myotis 4 X X SC S<br />
Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis 2 2 X X SC S<br />
Myotis volans long-legged myotis 3 1 X X SC S<br />
Myotis californicus California myotis 8 3 3 X X X<br />
Myotis ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis X X SC S<br />
Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat 4 1 X X<br />
Pipistrellus hesperus western pipistrelle X X<br />
Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat 55 1 X X X<br />
Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat 1 2 WSC<br />
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat 7 1 X X X<br />
Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat 1 X X SC<br />
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat 1 X X<br />
Molossidae Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat 16 1 X X X<br />
Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat 2 2 1 X S<br />
Carnivora<br />
Ursidae<br />
Ursus americanus American black bear 34 6 1 X<br />
Procyonidae Procyon lotor northern raccoon 7 1 X X<br />
Nasua narica white-nosed coati 30 2 2 X X<br />
Bassariscus astutus ringtail 229 1 1 X X X<br />
Mustelidae Taxidea taxus American badger 1<br />
Mephitidae Spilogale gracilis western spotted skunk 6 1<br />
Mephitidae Mephitis mephitis striped skunk 165 7 1 X X<br />
Mephitis macroura hooded skunk 185 1 1 X<br />
Conepatus mesoleucus white-backed hog-nosed skunk 27 1 1 X<br />
Canidae Canis familiaris feral dog 4 1<br />
Canis latrans coyote 120 4 1 X X X X<br />
Urocyon cinereoargenteus common gray fox 1029 11 1 X X X
138<br />
Survey type<br />
Documentation<br />
type Survey or species lists Conservation designation<br />
Order<br />
PhotoSpec- U.S.<br />
Family Scientific name Common name SMT BN ITP IO graphimen SU DU D&S S&D BU SI SW FWSa BLMb U.S.<br />
FSc AZ<br />
G&Fd Felidae Felis catus feral cat 1<br />
Puma concolor azteca mountian lion 75 9 1 1 X X<br />
Lynx rufus bobcat 57 3 2 X X X X<br />
Rodentia<br />
Sciuridae<br />
Spermophilus variegatus rock squirrel 1 15 9 1<br />
X<br />
X X<br />
Spermophilus tereticaudus round-tailed ground squirrel 1 1 X<br />
Ammospermophilus harrisii Harris’ antelope squirrel 7 4 1 X X<br />
Neotamias dorsalis cliff chipmunk 39 16 X X X<br />
Sciurus aberti Abert’s squirrel 1 9 7 1 X<br />
Sciurus arizonensis Arizona gray squirrel 3 1 1 X SC<br />
Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher 1 1 X X X<br />
Heteromyidae Perognathus amplus Arizona pocket mouse X X<br />
Chaetodipus penicillatus Sonoran Desert pocket mouse 42 3 X X X<br />
Chaetodipus intermedius rock pocket mouse 115 1 X X X SC<br />
Chaetodipus baileyi Bailey’s pocket mouse 13 X X X X<br />
Dipodomys merriami Merriam’s kangaroo rat 9 X X<br />
Muridae Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse 4 1 X SC<br />
Reithrodontomys fulvescens fulvous harvest mouse 4 2<br />
Peromyscus eremicus cactus mouse 35 4 X X X X SC S<br />
Peromyscus boylii brush mouse 165 1 6 X X<br />
Onychomys torridus southern grasshopper mousee Neotoma albigula western white-throated woodrat 75 14 2 X X X X<br />
Neotoma mexicana Mexican woodrat 25 X SC<br />
Sigmodon ochrognathus yellow-nosed cotton rat 12 X X SC<br />
Sigmodon arizonae Arizona cotton rat 4 1 X X<br />
Lagomorpha<br />
Leporidae<br />
Lepus alleni antelope jackrabbit 7 2 1 X X<br />
Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit 10 1 1 X X X<br />
Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail 2 X<br />
Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail 21 1 X X X<br />
Artiodactyla<br />
Bovidae<br />
Bos taurus domestic cattle 3 1 1 X<br />
Tayassuidae Pecari tajacu collared peccary 980 17 1 3 X X X X<br />
Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus mule deer 37 3 1 X X X X<br />
Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer 202 40 1 X X X<br />
a LE = “Listed Endangered”, SC = “Species <strong>of</strong> Concern”; U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service (HDMS 2004); * Eastern cottontail not confirmed; see text.<br />
b “Sensitive species”; Bureau <strong>of</strong> L<strong>and</strong> Management (HDMS 2004).<br />
c “Sensitive species”; U.S. Forest Service (HDMS 2004).<br />
d “Wildlife <strong>of</strong> special concern”; Arizona Game <strong>and</strong> Fish Department (HDMS 2004).<br />
e Confirmed by roadkilled animal. See text for more information.<br />
f Observed in the mid 1990’s, but not since. May be extirpated. See text for more information.
Appendix E. <strong>Vertebrate</strong> specimen <strong>and</strong> photograph vouchers collected by University <strong>of</strong> Arizona or park personnel,<br />
<strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 1997–2002. All specimen vouchers are located in the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona (AZ) collections. Unless otherwise indicated, all photographic vouchers are located in the I&M <strong>of</strong>fice in Tucson.<br />
Voucher<br />
Collection AZ<br />
type Taxon Species Collector/photographer date collection # Specimen type<br />
Specimen Amphibian red-spotted toad Don E. Swann 07/29/99 54002 whole<br />
American bullfrog Dan M. Bell 08/18/97 whole<br />
Sonoran mud turtle Kevin E. Bonine 07/04/02 54632 whole<br />
Don E. Swann 12/22/01 54001 whole<br />
J. Moorbeck whole<br />
Reptile desert tortoise Don E. Swann 07/30/99 whole<br />
Don E. Swann 09/30/97 54658 whole<br />
Kevin E. Bonine 07/30/02 whole<br />
lesser earless lizard Mike D. Wall 05/24/01 53122 whole<br />
zebra-tailed lizard Don E. Swann 01/11/02 54011 whole<br />
desert spiny lizard Jay Loughlin 05/02/01 54010 whole<br />
canyon spotted whiptail Dale S. Turner 03/23/01 53686 whole<br />
coachwhip Chris K. Kirkpatrick 07/07/01 53640 whole<br />
mountain patch-nosed snake Dave B. Prival 05/15/01 53089 whole<br />
gopher snake Dale S. Turner 03/23/01 53684 whole<br />
common kingsnake Don E. Swann 07/12/02 54005 whole<br />
variable s<strong>and</strong>snake Don E. Swann 02/19/02 54004 whole<br />
southwestern black-headed snake Don E. Swann 07/12/99 54006 whole<br />
western diamond-backed rattlesnake James E. Borgmeyer 05/02/01 53646 whole<br />
Mojave rattlesnake Brian F. Powell 04/04/01 52449 whole<br />
Mammal unknown desert shrew Ronnie Sidner 09/24/01 26913 Skull <strong>and</strong> Skeleton<br />
Ronnie Sidner 09/13/01 26911 Skull <strong>and</strong> Skeleton<br />
Ronnie Sidner 09/13/01 26915 Skull <strong>and</strong> Skeleton<br />
Ronnie Sidner 09/13/01 26910 Skull <strong>and</strong> Skeleton<br />
Neil D. Perry 07/24/01 Skull<br />
southern long-nosed bat Ronnie Sidner 05/13/01 Lost by museum?<br />
California myotis Ronnie Sidner 05/05/02 26854 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Ronnie Sidner 09/23/01 26946 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Ronnie Sidner 09/18/01 26855 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
pocketed free-tailed bat Ronnie Sidner 09/30/02 26856 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
ringtail Neil D. Perry 07/16/02 26769 Skull<br />
common gray fox Jason A. Schmidt 05/01/01 26774 Skull<br />
mountain lion Ronnie Sidner 06/02/01 26756 Skull<br />
Botta’s pocket gopher Neil D. Perry 10/10/01 27040 Skull<br />
Sonoran Desert pocket mouse Neil D. Perry 04/15/02 26916 Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 04/17/02 26868 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 04/17/02 26888 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
rock pocket mouse Neil D. Perry 10/31/02 26921 Skull<br />
western harvest mouse Neil D. Perry 07/23/01 26827 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
fulvous harvest mouse Neil D. Perry 04/11/02 26895 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 04/16/02 26887 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
cactus mouse Neil D. Perry 04/15/02 26852 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 05/14/01 27039 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 04/11/02 26894 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 04/11/02 26893 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
brush mouse Jason A. Schmidt 06/10/01 26837 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 06/10/01 26889 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 06/06/01 26826 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Ronnie Sidner 09/13/01 26901 Skull<br />
Specimen Mammal western white-throated woodrat Neil D. Perry 05/15/01 26857 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
Arizona cotton rat Neil D. Perry 05/13/01 26833 Skin <strong>and</strong> Skull<br />
collared peccary Jason A. Schmidt 05/09/01 26760 Skull<br />
Neil D. Perry 06/07/01 26772 Skull<br />
Photograph Amphibian Couch’s spadefoot Dave B. Prival 08/14/01<br />
Sonoran desert toad Dave B. Prival 07/09/01<br />
red-spotted toad Dave B. Prival 04/29/01<br />
139
Voucher<br />
Collection<br />
type Taxon Species Collector/photographer date<br />
Photograph Amphibian canyon treefrog Dave B. Prival 07/27/01<br />
lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog Dave B. Prival 06/25/01<br />
Dave B. Prival 04/29/01<br />
Reptile Sonoran mud turtle Dave B. Prival 05/01/01<br />
desert tortoise Dave B. Prival 07/29/01<br />
western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko Dave B. Prival 06/28/01<br />
eastern collared lizard Dave B. Prival 04/29/01<br />
lesser earless lizard Dave B. Prival 04/30/01<br />
greater earless lizard Dave B. Prival 04/29/01<br />
zebra-tailed lizard Dave B. Prival 10/05/01<br />
desert spiny lizard Dave B. Prival 04/04/01<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard Mike D. Wall 06/27/01<br />
eastern fence lizard Dave B. Prival 05/09/01<br />
common side-blotched lizard Dave B. Prival 10/05/01<br />
ornate tree lizard Dave B. Prival 04/29/01<br />
greater short-horned lizard Dave B. Prival 05/12/01<br />
pygmy short-horned lizard Neil D. Perry 08/19/01<br />
regal horned lizard Dave B. Prival 06/27/01<br />
Great Plains skink Dave B. Prival 06/25/01<br />
canyon spotted whiptail Dan M. Bell 09/04/99<br />
Sonoran spotted whiptail Dave B. Prival 06/28/01<br />
Gila spotted whiptail Cecil R. Schwalbe 10/19/99<br />
Dave B. Prival 06/28/01<br />
Dave B. Prival 07/25/01<br />
western whiptail (tiger whiptail) Dave B. Prival 10/05/01<br />
Madrean alligator lizard Dave B. Prival 08/09/01<br />
Gila monster Dave B. Prival 05/01/01<br />
western blind snake Matt J. Goode 08/08/97<br />
coachwhip Don E. Swann 10/01/01<br />
Sonoran whipsnake Dave B. Prival 05/09/01<br />
western patch-nosed snake Dave B. Prival 08/14/01<br />
mountain patch-nosed snake Dave B. Prival 05/15/01<br />
gopher snake Dave B. Prival 05/24/01<br />
common kingsnake Dave B. Prival 06/26/01<br />
Sonoran mountain kingsnake Dave B. Prival 05/11/01<br />
long-nosed snake Dave B. Prival 05/02/01<br />
black-necked garter snake Dave B. Prival 05/08/01<br />
western ground snake Dave B. Prival 08/09/01<br />
night snake Mike D. Wall 05/01/01<br />
Sonoran coral snake Dave B. Prival 07/27/01<br />
western diamond-backed rattlesnake Dave B. Prival 07/09/01<br />
black-tailed rattlesnake Dave B. Prival 04/30/01<br />
tiger rattlesnake Dave B. Prival 05/10/01<br />
western rattlesnake Dave B. Prival 06/27/01<br />
Mammala Virginia opossum Don Swann 12/08/99<br />
southwestern myotis Ronnie Sidner 09/23/01<br />
Photograph Mammal fringed myotis Ronnie Sidner 05/19/01<br />
long-legged myotis Ronnie Sidner 05/21/01<br />
California myotis Ronnie Sidner 09/22/01<br />
silver-haired bat Ronnie Sidner 05/20/01<br />
big brown bat Ronnie Sidner 09/22/01<br />
hoary bat Ronnie Sidner 05/17/01<br />
Brazilian free-tailed bat Ronnie Sidner 05/20/01<br />
pocketed free-tailed bat Ronnie Sidner 05/17/01<br />
American black bear Don E. Swann 11/05/04<br />
northern raccoon Don E. Swann 03/06/03<br />
white-nosed coati Don E. Swann 10/21/02<br />
ringtail Don E. Swann 08/12/99<br />
western spotted skunk Don E. Swann 12/17/02<br />
striped skunk Don E. Swann 09/21/99<br />
140<br />
AZ<br />
collection # Specimen type
Voucher<br />
Collection<br />
type Taxon Species Collector/photographer date<br />
Photograph Mammal hooded skunk Don E. Swann 12/13/04<br />
white-backed hog-nosed skunk Don E. Swann 11/21/02<br />
feral dog Don E. Swann 03/00/05<br />
coyote Don E. Swann 12/00/02<br />
common gray fox Don E. Swann 12/19/99<br />
feral cat Don E. Swann 02/23/05<br />
mountain lion Neil D. Perry 08/19/01<br />
bobcat Neil D. Perry 07/19/01<br />
rock squirrel Neil D. Perry 06/17/01<br />
round-tailed ground squirrel Don E. Swann 11/02/00<br />
Harris’ antelope squirrel Don E. Swann 04/08/00<br />
Abert’s squirrel Don E. Swann 08/12/00<br />
Arizona gray squirrel Don E. Swann 12/10/04<br />
antelope jackrabbit Don E. Swann 08/21/01<br />
black-tailed jackrabbit Don E. Swann 08/15/01<br />
eastern cottontail Don E. Swann 09/30/03<br />
desert cottontail Don E. Swann 11/14/00<br />
domestic cattle Don E. Swann 02/14/00<br />
collared peccary Don E. Swann 11/28/00<br />
mule deer Don E. Swann 11/04/01<br />
white-tailed deer Don E. Swann 04/28/04<br />
a Photographs taken by Don E. Swann are located at the park headquarters.<br />
141<br />
AZ<br />
collection # Specimen type
Appendix F. List <strong>of</strong> existing voucher specimens collected prior to this inventory effort. See Table 1.1 for list <strong>of</strong><br />
collections queried for these data.<br />
Taxon Common name Collectiona Collection<br />
Collection number<br />
date Collector<br />
Amphibian Couch’s spadefoot NPS 562 1964 B. A Lund<br />
570 1977 W. F. Steenbergh<br />
Sonoran desert toad FWMSH 1981 Tim Jones<br />
red-spotted toad NPS 559, 565 to 569 1964 B. A. Lund<br />
canyon treefrog NPS 555, 570, 611 1965-1968 B. A. Lund, H. Coss<br />
lowl<strong>and</strong> leopard frog UA 43205 1979<br />
Reptile western b<strong>and</strong>ed gecko UA 1126 1960<br />
eastern collared lizard UA 47101 1986<br />
lesser earless lizard NPS 557 1966 B. A. Lund<br />
greater earless lizard NPS 550, 551 1966 B. A. Lund<br />
zebra-tailed lizard NPS 552 1966 B. A. Lund<br />
eastern fence lizard USNM 042548, 048547<br />
desert spiny lizard UA 10105 1963<br />
Clark’s spiny lizard UA 2258 1960<br />
common side-blotched lizard NHMLAC 98183<br />
OMNH 30000 1959<br />
UA 45649 1984<br />
ornate tree lizard UA 3759 1960<br />
pygmy short-horned lizard USNM 039311, 039312, 048549 1911 H. Brown<br />
regal horned lizard UA 32291 1968<br />
Sonoran spotted whiptail UA 4809 1968<br />
Gila spotted whiptail UA 54480 1998<br />
Madrean alligator lizard UA 7249 1959<br />
Gila monster AU 1994 1959 G. Folkerts<br />
saddled leaf-nosed snake UA 30838 1969<br />
Sonoran whipsnake NPS 579, 581 1963<br />
R. Fabel, R. Lutz, S.<br />
Ferguson<br />
western patch-nosed snake AU 1931 1959 R. Faber<br />
gopher snake NPS 1280 1977 K. Black<br />
western ground snake UA 26361 1959<br />
variable s<strong>and</strong>snake UA 35166 1972<br />
western lyre snake UA 26954 1959<br />
night snake MPM 18366 1997 R. M. Blaney<br />
Sonoran coral snake NPS 584<br />
black-tailed rattlesnake NPS 588<br />
tiger rattlesnake UM 130211 1969 R. W. Van Devender<br />
AU 1964 1959 G. Folkerts<br />
UA 43288 1979<br />
Arizona black rattlesnake NPS 578, 592, 599 1967 H. Coss<br />
Mojave rattlesnake AU 1963 1959 G. Folkerts<br />
Bird Cooper’s hawk UA 4008, 12936, 14888 1911 H. Brown<br />
red-tailed hawk UA 4027, 14771 1911 H. Brown<br />
zone-tailed hawk UA 4034 H. Brown<br />
Gambel’s quail UA 14911<br />
Montezuma quail NPS 4712<br />
b<strong>and</strong>-tailed pigeon UA 3534, 3377 1911 H. Brown<br />
white-winged dove UA 9934<br />
flammulated owl UA 14877<br />
great-horned owl UA 6153<br />
elf owl Yale 7473, 7474 1958 D. H. Parsons<br />
UA 14146, 14761, 16540<br />
western screech-owl UA 13925, 14891<br />
common poorwill Yale 7475 to 7478 1958 D. H. Parsons<br />
black-chinned hummingbird UA 14893<br />
Anna’s hummingbird UA 3200 1911 H. Brown<br />
rufous hummingbird UA 9944<br />
broad-tailed hummingbird UA 3495 1911 H. Brown<br />
magnificent hummingbird UA 3496 1911 H. Brown<br />
142
Taxon Common name Collectiona Collection number<br />
Collection<br />
date Collector<br />
Bird northern flicker UA 1502, 14892 1911 H. Brown<br />
acorn woodpecker UA 1841 to 1845 1911 H. Brown<br />
Gila woodpecker UA 7482, 13857, 14889, 14894<br />
red-naped sapsucker UA 14894<br />
ladder-backed woodpecker UA 2823<br />
Stellar’s jay UA 2773, 2774 1911 H. Brown<br />
brown-crested flycatcher UA 14145<br />
dusky flycatcher UA 11306<br />
Pacific-slope flycatcher UA 2659, 14874 1911 H. Brown<br />
buff-breasted flycatcher UA 1871 1911 H. Brown<br />
greater pewee UA 1874 to 1879 1911 H. Brown<br />
western wood-pewee UA 1880, 1881 1911 H. Brown<br />
violet-green swallow UA 1889 1911 H. Brown<br />
purple martin UA 14880<br />
house wren UA 14876<br />
cactus wren UA 14144<br />
curve-billed thrasher Yale 6474 1932 A. Walker<br />
UA 14155<br />
bridled titmouse UA 2788 1911 H. Brown<br />
bushtit UA 2798, 3878 1911 H. Brown<br />
white-breasted nuthatch UA 1913, 10823, 10824 1911 H. Brown<br />
pygmy nuthatch UA<br />
1915 to 1925, 2921, 2922,<br />
14873<br />
1911 H. Brown<br />
brown creeper UA 3876, 14879 1911 H. Brown<br />
olive warbler UA 1988 to 1991 1911 H. Brown<br />
Virginia’s warbler UA 3146 1911 H. Brown<br />
yellow-rumped warbler UA 2000 1911 H. Brown<br />
hermit warbler UA 2006, 3196 to 3198 1911 H. Brown<br />
Grace’s warbler UA 2010 to 2012, 3245 1911 H. Brown<br />
MacGillivray’s warbler UA 10256<br />
painted redstart 1831 1911 H. Brown<br />
UA 3318, 3705 1960 R. R. Johnson<br />
Bell’s vireo UA 3121 1986 H. Brown<br />
solitary vireo UA 1981 1911 H. Brown<br />
warbling vireo UA 14875<br />
spotted towhee UA 1678, 2488 1911 H. Brown<br />
canyon towhee UA 2178 1958 J. T. Marshall<br />
yellow-eyed junco UA 1622 to 1626, 2304 to 2308 1911 H. Brown<br />
Brewer’s sparrow UA 10194, 10195<br />
black-throated sparrow UA 14351, 14890<br />
white-crowned sparrow UA 14897<br />
western bluebird UA<br />
1954, 1955, 3037, 3038, 3040,<br />
1911<br />
3041<br />
H. Brown<br />
western tanager UA 14895<br />
UA 14896<br />
hepatic tanager UA 1697, 1698 1911 H. Brown<br />
Mammal desert shrew UA 26017 1988 R.M. Sidner<br />
Mexican long-tongued Bat UA 7906, 7955 1960 B. Hayward<br />
UA 26677, 3651-3660 1999 J. Walner<br />
southern long-nosed bat UA 7748, 7749 1960<br />
P. J. Gould, B. J. Hayward<br />
et. al.<br />
UA 14491, 14495 1966 R. J. Baker<br />
UA 16011, 16115-16117, 17013 1967 J. T. Mascarello<br />
Yuma myotis UA 25518 1986 R. M. Sidner<br />
cave myotis UA 7750-7754 1960<br />
P. J. Gould, B. J. Hayward<br />
et.al.<br />
southwestern myotis SDMNH 10086 1932 T. W. Sefton, L. M. Huey<br />
UA 25350 1985 R. Davis<br />
UA 25519, 22521, 25525 1986 R. M. Sidner<br />
fringed myotis UA 15333-15335, 15361 1966 B. A. Lund<br />
UA 25349, 25352 1985 R. Davis<br />
143
Taxon Common name Collectiona Collection number<br />
Collection<br />
date Collector<br />
UA 25522, 25524 1986 R. M. Sidner<br />
long-legged myotis SDMNH 10084 1932 L. M. Huey, J. W. Sefton<br />
UA 25351 1985 R. Davis<br />
UA 25515-22517 1986 R. M. Sidner<br />
UA 25526 1985 R. Davis<br />
California myotis UA 25520 1986 R. Sidner<br />
western small-footed myotis UA 25523 1986 R. M. Sidner<br />
silver-haired bat UA 25514 1986 R. M. Sidner<br />
SDMNH 10076 1932 L. M. Huey, J. W. Sefton<br />
SDMNH 10105 1932 T. W. Sefton, L. M. Huey<br />
UA 810-811 1911 H. Brown<br />
Townsend’s big-eared bat UA 16113, 16114 1967 J. T. Mascarello<br />
UA<br />
16746-16748, 16875, 16876,<br />
16974<br />
1967 G. Clay Mitchell<br />
desert cottontail UIMNH 23360, 26220, 26221 1946 W. & L. Goodpaster<br />
NPS 61 1958<br />
black-tailed jackrabbit UA 7091 1959 G. V. R. Bradshaw<br />
UA 12000 1964 J. H. Nelson<br />
antelope jackrabbit UA 12007 1964 G. L. Hathaway<br />
UIMNH 26244 1946 W. W. Goodpaster<br />
cliff chipmunk SDMNH 10067 1932 L. M. Huey<br />
SDMNH 10071 1932 L. M. Huey, S.G. Harter<br />
SDMNH 10089, 10090, 10118-10120 1932 L. M. Huey, L.H. Cook<br />
SDMNH 10094-10102, 10124, 10125 1932 T. W. Sefton, L. M. Huey<br />
SDMNH 10132, 10143, 10144 1932 L. M. Huey<br />
UA 879 1911 H. Brown<br />
UA 16464-16466 1966 L. Christianson<br />
UA 25346 1984 R. Davis<br />
NPS 543, 544 1966 Mulhern<br />
Harris’s antelope squirrel UA 2817 R. E. Dingman<br />
UA 2944, 2945 1963 J. L. Patton<br />
UIMNH 18325 1958 I. A. Nadr<br />
UIMNH 23983, 23984 1946 W.W. Goodpaster<br />
NPS 60, 287 1940, 1960<br />
rock squirrel SDMNH 10087, 10129 1932 L. M. Huey, J. W.Sefton<br />
SDMNH 10116 1932 S. G. Harter, L. M. Huey<br />
SDMNH 10145 1932 L.M. Huey<br />
UIMNH 24013 1946 W.W. Goodpaster<br />
round-tailed ground squirrel UA 2809-2816 1963 R.E. Dingman<br />
UIMNH 23976-23979 1946 W.W. Goodpaster<br />
Arizona gray squirrel SDMNH 10079, 10086, 10092, 10130 1932 L.M. Huey, J.W.Sefton<br />
Botta’s pocket gopher SDMNH<br />
10062-10083, 10085, 10088,<br />
10106-10110, 10117, 10127,<br />
10128, 10133-10151<br />
1932 L.M. Huey<br />
UA 875 1911 H. Brown<br />
silky pocket mouse UA<br />
UIMNH 24281-24284 1946 W. & L. Goodpaster<br />
3004, 7098, 7119, 7120, 3003,<br />
3005, 3006, 7096-7102, 7121,<br />
7122<br />
144<br />
1959 G. V. R. Bradshaw<br />
UA 12222-12232 1963 D. Wright<br />
UA 16751 1966 J. L. Patton<br />
UIMNH 4812-4813 1946 W. L. Goodpaster<br />
UIMNH<br />
24374, 24375, 24382, 18373,<br />
18374<br />
1946 W. W. Goodpaster<br />
Bailey’s pocket mouse UA 7095, 24604, 24605, 25347 1959 G. V. R. Bradshaw<br />
UA 25725-25727 1984 D. Johnson<br />
UIMNH 18375-18378 1958 D. F. H<strong>of</strong>fmeister<br />
UIMNH 24411, 24412, 24425-24427 1946 W. W. Goodpaster<br />
rock pocket mouse NPS 292, 293, 294 1963 Dengler<br />
kangaroo rat UA 2093 1959 E. L. Cockrum<br />
bannertail kangaroo rat UIMNH 24329-24331 1946 W. W. Goodpaster
Taxon Common name Collectiona Collection number<br />
Collection<br />
date Collector<br />
Merriam’s kangaroo rat UA 7094 1959 G. V. R. Bradshaw<br />
UIMNH 18465-18469 1958 J. S. Hall<br />
UIMNH 24342, 24343 1946 W. W. Goodpaster<br />
cactus mouse UA 24882, 26006, 26008 1984 R. Davis<br />
UIMNH 18659, 24564, 24565 1958 I. A. Nadr<br />
deer mouse UA 1388, 1389 1954 W. Collins<br />
brush mouse SDMNH<br />
10103, 10104, 10112-10115,<br />
10121, 10122, 10126, 10131<br />
1932 L. M. Huey<br />
UA 1387, 1390-1392 1954 W. Collins<br />
UA 26939-26943 1985 R. Davis<br />
UIMNH 24549 1932 A. Walker<br />
southern grasshopper mouse UA 7092 1959 G. Bradshaw<br />
UIMNH 18672, 25566-25568 1958 J. S. Hall<br />
NPS 297 1983<br />
Arizona cotton rat UA 25191 1983 R. Davis<br />
yellow-nosed cotton rat UA 25192-25194, 26011-26016 1984 R. Davis<br />
western white-throated woodrat UA 7093 1959 G.V.R. Bradshaw<br />
UA 25655 1974 R. Dickson<br />
UIMNH<br />
18700, 18709, 18710, 25844-<br />
25850<br />
1958 J. S. Hall<br />
Mexican woodrat SDMNH 10111, 10123 1932 L.M. Huey<br />
UA 16461-16463 1966 L. Christianson<br />
UA 26938 1985 R. Davis<br />
NPS 542 1966 Mulhern<br />
common gray fox UA 25992 R. Davis<br />
NPS 306, 307, 1283 1962<br />
North American porcupine SNP 536 1963 B. Lund<br />
American badger UA 17900 1968 Wade<br />
jaguar UA 588,589 1932 H. Wilson<br />
mule deer SDMNH 10091 1932 L.M. Huey, L.H.Cook<br />
collared peccary NPS 303, 305<br />
a AU = Auburn University Museum; FWMSH = Fort Worth Museum <strong>of</strong> Science <strong>and</strong> History; MPM = Milwaukee Public Museum; NHMLAC =<br />
Natural History Museum, Los Angeles County; NPS = National Park Service Western Archaeologial Conservation Center; OMNH = Oklahoma<br />
Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History; SDMNH = San Diego Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History; SNP = <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park; UA = University <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
Collections; UIMNH = University <strong>of</strong> Ilinois (Champaign-Urbana) Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History; UM = University <strong>of</strong> Michigan; USMN = U.S.<br />
National Museum; Yale = Yale University, Peabody Museum <strong>of</strong> Natural History.<br />
b Observed outside but near the park.<br />
145
Appendix G. Mean frequency <strong>of</strong> detection <strong>of</strong> birds, by community type <strong>and</strong> transect, recorded during repeatvisit<br />
VCP surveys, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. “Total transects” indicates<br />
in how many transects (all commununities; maximum value is 23) we recorded at least one individual during surveys.<br />
Frequency <strong>of</strong> detections includes all birds recorded including flyovers, birds seen >75 m from stations, <strong>and</strong> birds<br />
recorded outside <strong>of</strong> 8-minute-count periods.<br />
Species<br />
Total<br />
transects<br />
observed<br />
Lower<br />
Rincon<br />
Creek<br />
Upper<br />
Rincon<br />
Creek<br />
146<br />
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
Box<br />
Canyon<br />
Loma<br />
Verde<br />
Wash 112 115 121 130 138 139<br />
mallard 1 0.05<br />
wild turkey 1<br />
scaled quail 1<br />
Gambel’s quail 13 2.03 0.51 1.22 1.09 0.69 1.81 0.63 0.25 0.44 0.13<br />
Montezuma quail 6 0.06<br />
turkey vulture 12 0.20 0.16 0.33 0.61 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.06<br />
sharp-shinned hawk 1 0.01<br />
Cooper’s hawk 4 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.04<br />
northern goshawk 2<br />
gray hawk 1 0.05<br />
zone-tailed hawk 3 0.02 0.02<br />
red-tailed hawk 7 0.14 0.06<br />
golden eagle 3 0.13<br />
American kestrel 7 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06<br />
peregrine falcon 3<br />
rock pigeon 1 0.05<br />
b<strong>and</strong>-tailed pigeon 5 0.06<br />
white-winged dove 18 1.62 1.10 2.49 2.87 1.63 2.19 1.63 2.25 2.31 1.19<br />
mourning dove 16 1.47 1.08 1.73 3.57 1.19 2.25 1.56 2.00 1.69 2.06<br />
common ground-dove 2 0.05 0.14<br />
yellow-billed cuckoo 1 0.06<br />
greater roadrunner 4 0.02 0.09<br />
whiskered screech-owl 1<br />
great horned owl 6 0.10 0.17 0.06 0.06<br />
northern pygmy-owl 2<br />
lesser nighthawk 1 0.02<br />
common poorwill 2<br />
whip-poor-will 2<br />
white-throated swift 14 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.50 0.06<br />
broad-billed hummingbird 3 0.09 0.18 0.24<br />
magnificent hummingbird 2<br />
black-chinned hummingbird 13 0.20 0.37 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.19<br />
Anna’s hummingbird 8 0.13 0.06<br />
Costa’s hummingbird 7 0.01 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.06<br />
broad-tailed hummingbird 10 0.01 0.04 0.03<br />
rufous hummingbird 2 0.02 0.06<br />
elegant trogon 1<br />
belted kingfisher 1 0.01<br />
acorn woodpecker 9<br />
gila woodpecker 12 1.30 0.37 1.56 1.74 1.69 2.31 0.31 1.13 0.75 2.13<br />
ladder-backed woodpecker 14 0.44 0.24 0.33 0.48 0.25 0.19 0.50 0.19 0.13 0.38<br />
hairy woodpecker 4<br />
Arizona woodpecker 5<br />
northern flicker 10 0.02 0.02<br />
gilded flicker 10 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.19 0.06 0.81<br />
northern beardless-tyrannulet 4 0.02 0.12 0.19 0.06<br />
greater pewee 5<br />
western wood-pewee 11 0.03 0.02 0.06<br />
Hammond’s flycatcher 2 0.13<br />
gray flycatcher 3 0.05 0.06 0.13<br />
dusky flycatcher 1 0.06
Total<br />
transects<br />
Lower<br />
Rincon<br />
Upper<br />
Rincon<br />
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
147<br />
Loma<br />
Verde<br />
Wash 112 115 121 130 138 139<br />
Species<br />
observed Creek Creek<br />
Box<br />
Canyon<br />
pacific-slope flycatcher 1 0.02<br />
cordilleran flycatcher 7 0.01<br />
black phoebe 5 0.02 0.14 0.02<br />
vermilion flycatcher 2 0.28 0.02<br />
dusky-capped flycatcher 9 0.13<br />
ash-throated flycatcher 21 0.64 0.55 0.49 0.65 1.63 1.56 1.06 1.44 0.63 1.81<br />
brown-crested flycatcher 13 1.24 0.49 0.87 0.39 0.50 0.06 0.56 0.63 0.75 0.63<br />
sulphur-bellied flycatcher 1<br />
Cassin’s kingbird 6 0.31 0.02 0.25 0.19<br />
western kingbird 4 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.13<br />
Bell’s vireo 6 0.51 1.35 0.94 0.09 0.13 0.19<br />
plumbeous vireo 7<br />
Hutton’s vireo 11 0.06<br />
warbling vireo 5 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06<br />
Steller’s jay 4<br />
western scrub-jay 10 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.06<br />
Mexican jay 10<br />
common raven 19 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.26 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.13<br />
purple martin 4 1.02 0.49 0.35 0.06<br />
violet-green swallow 11 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.06<br />
mountain chickadee 3<br />
bridled titmouse 10 0.07<br />
verdin 11 0.87 0.76 1.62 1.30 0.88 1.00 0.06 0.50 0.69 0.69<br />
bushtit 9<br />
red-breasted nuthatch 1<br />
white-breasted nuthatch 8<br />
pygmy nuthatch 3<br />
brown creeper 3<br />
cactus wren 13 0.68 0.75 1.14 0.74 2.38 1.19 1.06 1.44 1.00 1.31<br />
rock wren 13 0.02 0.13 0.19 0.63 0.19<br />
canyon wren 17 0.16 0.56 0.31 0.56 0.31 0.38<br />
Bewick’s wren 17 1.01 0.59 0.46 0.57 0.19 0.06<br />
house wren 7 0.01 0.02<br />
ruby-crowned kinglet 3 0.01 0.02<br />
blue-gray gnatcatcher 14 0.03 0.02 0.02<br />
black-tailed gnatcatcher 9 0.03 0.10 0.33 0.17 0.38 0.56 0.06 0.31 0.56<br />
western bluebird 8 0.06<br />
hermit thrush 5<br />
American robin 5<br />
northern mockingbird 13 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.63 0.25 0.13 0.13<br />
curve-billed thrasher 11 0.43 0.33 0.92 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.06 0.44 0.44<br />
Crissal thrasher 2 0.08 0.09<br />
European starling 1 0.03<br />
cedar waxwing 1 0.05<br />
phainopepla 10 0.22 0.16 0.11 0.22 0.19 0.13 0.31 0.13<br />
olive warbler 5 0.02<br />
orange-crowned warbler 6 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.06<br />
Nashville warbler 1 0.04<br />
Virginia’s warbler 9 0.06<br />
Lucy’s warbler 5 1.69 0.84 1.00 1.61 0.56<br />
yellow warbler 3 0.22 0.12 0.03<br />
yellow-rumped warbler 8 0.02 0.04<br />
black-throated gray warbler 13 0.05 0.06 0.06<br />
Townsend’s warbler 3 0.13<br />
Grace’s warbler 6<br />
Macgillivray’s warbler 2 0.01 0.03<br />
Wilson’s warbler 10 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.13 0.06<br />
red-faced warbler 4
Species<br />
Total<br />
transects<br />
observed<br />
Lower<br />
Rincon<br />
Creek<br />
Upper<br />
Rincon<br />
Creek<br />
Riparian Sonoran Desertscrub<br />
148<br />
Box<br />
Canyon<br />
Loma<br />
Verde<br />
Wash 112 115 121 130 138 139<br />
painted redstart 3<br />
hepatic tanager 9<br />
summer tanager 3 0.30 0.27 0.02<br />
western tanager 12 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.06<br />
green-tailed towhee 8 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.22 0.13 0.06 0.06<br />
spotted towhee 12 0.02<br />
canyon towhee 13 0.22 0.37 0.44 0.52 0.81 0.44 1.13 0.63 1.00 0.50<br />
Abert’s towhee 5 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.06<br />
rufous-winged sparrow 8 0.36 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.13<br />
rufous-crowned sparrow 19 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.31 1.19 1.44 0.50 0.81<br />
chipping sparrow 8 0.03 0.20 0.08 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.06<br />
Brewer’s sparrow 5 0.02 0.20 0.08 0.43 0.25<br />
black-chinned sparrow 8 0.06 0.06<br />
Lincoln’s sparrow 1 0.02<br />
vesper sparrow 1 0.04<br />
lark sparrow 5 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.06<br />
black-throated sparrow 11 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.26 1.13 1.31 0.38 1.19 1.31 2.50<br />
song sparrow 1 0.02<br />
white-crowned sparrow 5 0.09 0.06 0.19 0.13<br />
yellow-eyed junco 5<br />
northern cardinal 10 0.79 0.41 1.03 0.39 0.19 0.44 0.38 1.19 0.06<br />
pyrrhuloxia 7 0.10 0.08 0.26 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.13<br />
black-headed grosbeak 16 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.06<br />
blue grosbeak 5 0.25 0.33 0.02 0.06 0.06<br />
lazuli bunting 4 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.06<br />
indigo bunting 1 0.01<br />
varied bunting 5 0.02 0.18 0.33 0.04 0.13<br />
bronzed cowbird 1 0.06<br />
brown-headed cowbird 18 0.41 0.33 0.78 0.22 0.44 0.13 0.38 0.56 0.31<br />
hooded oriole 4 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.06<br />
Bullock’s oriole 5 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.25<br />
Scott’s oriole 17 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.38 0.13 0.75 0.25 0.44 0.31<br />
house finch 14 0.53 0.20 2.24 0.52 2.00 1.94 1.38 0.75 0.19 0.94<br />
pine siskin 2<br />
lesser goldfinch 14 0.67 0.45 0.54 0.17 0.19 0.13 0.50 0.06<br />
Appendix G continued.<br />
Oak Savannah Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> Conifer Forest<br />
Happy Valley<br />
Rincon<br />
Species 101 106 189 111 107 125 155 120 128 Saddle 113 191 Peak<br />
wild turkey 0.03<br />
scaled quail 0.06<br />
Gambel’s quail 2.81 0.94 0.06<br />
Montezuma quail 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.19 0.06<br />
turkey vulture 0.25 0.06 0.13 0.06<br />
northern goshawk 0.11 0.04<br />
zone-tailed hawk 0.31<br />
red-tailed hawk 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.06<br />
golden eagle 0.06 0.06<br />
American kestrel 0.13<br />
peregrine falcon 0.06 0.06 0.06<br />
b<strong>and</strong>-tailed pigeon 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.08<br />
white-winged dove 3.19 2.13 2.94 0.69 1.38 0.06 0.03 0.04<br />
mourning dove 1.94 1.00 0.44 0.19 0.31 0.31<br />
greater roadrunner 0.13 0.06<br />
whiskered screech-owl 0.06<br />
great horned owl 0.13 0.06
Oak Savannah Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> Conifer Forest<br />
Species 101 106 189 111 107 125 155 120 128<br />
149<br />
Happy Valley<br />
Saddle 113 191<br />
Rincon<br />
Peak<br />
northern pygmy-owl 0.06 0.06<br />
common poorwill 0.31 0.03<br />
whip-poor-will 0.13 0.06<br />
white-throated swift 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08<br />
magnificent hummingbird 0.13 0.08<br />
black-chinned hummingbird 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.13<br />
Anna’s hummingbird 0.19 0.06 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.17<br />
Costa’s hummingbird 0.06 0.06<br />
broad-tailed hummingbird 0.13 0.25 1.06 0.08 0.50 0.06 0.08<br />
rufous hummingbird<br />
elegant trogon 0.11<br />
acorn woodpecker 0.06 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.19 1.11 0.06 0.04<br />
gila woodpecker 0.13 0.13<br />
ladder-backed woodpecker 0.44 0.31 0.56 0.06<br />
hairy woodpecker 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.38<br />
Arizona woodpecker 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.11<br />
northern flicker 0.19 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.38 0.88 0.46<br />
gilded flicker<br />
greater pewee 0.06 0.31 0.56 0.19 0.17<br />
western wood-pewee 0.38 0.13 0.69 0.38 0.69 1.08 0.25 0.38<br />
Hammond’s flycatcher 0.06<br />
gray flycatcher<br />
cordilleran flycatcher 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.94 0.44 0.50<br />
black phoebe 0.06 0.13<br />
dusky-capped flycatcher 0.13 0.06 0.50 0.25 0.38 0.25 0.64 0.17<br />
ash-throated flycatcher 1.75 0.50 1.25 1.44 0.94 1.69 0.94 1.56 0.56 0.39 0.08<br />
brown-crested flycatcher 0.13 0.19 0.06<br />
sulphur-bellied flycatcher 0.22<br />
Cassin’s kingbird 0.19 0.50<br />
western kingbird<br />
plumbeous vireo 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.58 0.44 0.38 0.46<br />
Hutton’s vireo 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.31 0.63 0.81 0.19 0.13 0.28 0.17<br />
warbling vireo 0.13<br />
Steller’s jay 0.13 0.88 1.06 0.42<br />
western scrub-jay 0.25 0.31 0.25 0.06 0.13 0.06<br />
Mexican jay 0.31 1.44 0.75 0.06 2.31 1.25 1.50 0.69 1.06 1.11<br />
common raven 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.44 0.31 0.06 0.31 0.33<br />
violet-green swallow 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.42 0.06 1.13 0.54<br />
mountain chickadee 0.81 0.44 1.13<br />
bridled titmouse 0.19 0.63 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.38 0.19 0.31<br />
verdin 0.19<br />
bushtit 0.06 1.13 0.31 0.56 0.06 0.56 1.88 0.39 0.33<br />
red-breasted nuthatch 0.08<br />
white-breasted nuthatch 0.06 0.31 0.06 0.25 0.56 0.75 0.13 0.75<br />
pygmy nuthatch 0.06 0.44 0.13<br />
brown creeper 0.13 0.19 0.29<br />
cactus wren 0.75 0.25 0.94<br />
rock wren 0.06 0.56 0.31 0.38 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.25<br />
canyon wren 0.19 0.88 0.69 0.94 0.38 0.69 0.31 0.63 0.17 0.25 0.04<br />
Bewick’s wren 1.44 1.31 1.38 1.19 1.75 1.69 1.94 2.06 1.56 1.50 0.13<br />
house wren 0.06 0.06 0.81 0.56 0.08<br />
ruby-crowned kinglet 0.04<br />
blue-gray gnatcatcher 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.25 0.31 0.06 0.69 0.94 0.17 0.08<br />
black-tailed gnatcatcher<br />
western bluebird 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.38 0.56 0.04<br />
hermit thrush 0.13 0.19 0.63 0.56 1.21<br />
American robin 0.06 0.03 1.06 1.00 0.17<br />
northern mockingbird 2.63 0.19 1.44 0.13 0.13<br />
curve-billed thrasher 0.06
Oak Savannah Pine-oak Woodl<strong>and</strong> Conifer Forest<br />
Species 101 106 189 111 107 125 155 120 128<br />
150<br />
Happy Valley<br />
Saddle 113 191<br />
Rincon<br />
Peak<br />
phainopepla 1.19 0.63<br />
olive warbler 0.03 0.19 0.06 0.46<br />
orange-crowned warbler 0.08 0.04<br />
Virginia’s warbler 0.06 0.31 0.63 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.03 0.21<br />
yellow-rumped warbler 0.19 0.25 0.03 0.31 0.63 0.33<br />
black-throated gray warbler 0.94 0.31 0.06 1.00 0.75 1.13 0.94 1.00 0.47 0.54<br />
Townsend’s warbler 0.31 0.25<br />
Grace’s warbler 0.06 0.25 1.00 0.81 0.19 0.63<br />
Wilson’s warbler 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.04<br />
red-faced warbler 0.13 0.06 1.13 0.50<br />
painted redstart 0.13 0.06 0.33<br />
hepatic tanager 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.31 0.06 0.25 0.88 0.50 0.33<br />
western tanager 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.42 0.81 0.81 1.04<br />
green-tailed towhee 0.13<br />
spotted towhee 0.06 1.31 0.06 1.88 2.13 1.63 2.13 1.63 0.83 1.13 0.42<br />
canyon towhee 0.50 0.38 0.31<br />
rufous-winged sparrow<br />
rufous-crowned sparrow 1.38 1.94 0.69 2.00 0.81 0.56 0.25 0.69 0.44 0.08<br />
chipping sparrow 0.06<br />
black-chinned sparrow 0.06 1.31 0.06 0.81 0.88 0.94<br />
black-throated sparrow 0.31<br />
white-crowned sparrow 0.06<br />
yellow-eyed junco 0.13 0.11 1.69 1.94 1.38<br />
northern cardinal 0.06<br />
pyrrhuloxia<br />
black-headed grosbeak 0.38 1.13 0.06 0.19 0.25 0.69 0.06 1.44 0.50 0.50 0.46<br />
brown-headed cowbird 0.63 0.25 0.38 0.06 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.22<br />
Bullock’s oriole<br />
Scott’s oriole 0.50 0.31 0.75 1.06 0.13 0.31 0.13 0.11<br />
house finch 0.69 0.31 0.13 1.25<br />
pine siskin 0.94 0.04<br />
lesser goldfinch 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.14
Appendix H. Mean density (number <strong>of</strong> stems/hectare) <strong>of</strong> large trees <strong>and</strong> potential cavity-bearing plants at non-r<strong>and</strong>om,<br />
repeat-visit VCP stations, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. See Appendix A for common<br />
names.<br />
Transect<br />
Lower Rincon<br />
Creek<br />
Station<br />
constricta<br />
Acacia Celtis<br />
greggii<br />
Carnegia<br />
gigantea<br />
pallida<br />
reticulata<br />
Parkinsonia<br />
microphyllum<br />
151<br />
Fouquieria<br />
splendens<br />
Fraxinus<br />
velutina<br />
Platanus<br />
wrightii<br />
Populus<br />
fremontii<br />
Prosopis<br />
velutina<br />
Salix<br />
gooddingii<br />
1 80.5 16.6 11.9 7.5 85.2 80.5<br />
2 26.5 12.7 9.5 15.2 25.8<br />
3 7.6 2.4 4.9 2.8 14.5 2.4<br />
4 37.3 29.4 23.5 117.5<br />
5 24.3 8.1 1.3 8.1 9.2 0.6 53.6<br />
6 15.4 15.4 1.6 0.8 4.3 0.3 58.3<br />
7 0.9 7.8 6.4 0.3 0.4 50.5 3.9<br />
8 22.0 7.3 1.1 15.6 2.3 1.1 44.4<br />
Upper Rincon<br />
Creek<br />
1 9.8 29.5 6.7 42.3 10.5 8.3 20.8<br />
2 16.1 29.8 32.3 16.1 38.5 2.5 67.1<br />
3 18.7 22.1 28.0 24.3 38.2<br />
4 16.0 0.9 26.7 8.3 1.2 0.2 48.0<br />
5 17.3 3.9 34.6 8.8 1.1 0.7 28.8 0.4<br />
6 4.6 1.5 18.6 9.4 0.8 23.2<br />
7 7.1 9.8 6.6 5.5 1.6 22.9 6.6<br />
Box Canyon 1 4.9 18.3 14.6 14.6 4.9 5.4<br />
2 59.2 11.3 23.7 23.7 23.7 41.7<br />
3 17.4 6.3 17.4 17.4 17.4 8.7 31.1<br />
4 60.1 12.5 20.0 10.0 30.1 12.7 22.1<br />
5 13.3 1.0 7.3 7.3 12.0 29.9<br />
6 9.8 10.9 15.1 9.8 29.4 0.8 1.6 49.4<br />
7 49.3 15.2 12.3 6.1 77.0<br />
Upper Loma<br />
Verde Wash<br />
1 20.0 150.3 1.4 15.8<br />
2 6.5 45.5 6.5 27.6<br />
3 37.0 27.8 5.9 9.2 32.6<br />
4 78.0 9.5 11.1 33.4 89.2<br />
5 12.1 10.2 6.1 48.8<br />
Arctostaphylos<br />
Transect Station sp. a<br />
Juniperus Pinus Pinus Pinus Pseudotsuga Quercus<br />
deppeana cembroides leiophylla ponderosa menziesii sp. b<br />
Quercus Rhamnus<br />
gambelii crocea<br />
Happy Valley<br />
1<br />
Saddle<br />
342.3 185.9 720.6 294.2<br />
2 93.4 100.2 53.5 137.5 157.1 46.7<br />
3 76.6 197.5 31.1 15.5 40.6<br />
4 66.6 42.7 5.0 123.0 351.9 85.5<br />
5 50.4 145.7 1.2 105.1 269<br />
6 24.3 272.4 8.5 24.3 129<br />
Rincon Peak 1 5.1 34.5 107.3 76.6 344.6<br />
2 21.9 34.9 4.5 131.3 150.6 139.5<br />
3 15.5 19.4 162.8 42.6<br />
4<br />
a A. pringlei, <strong>and</strong> A. pungens.<br />
216.3 61.9<br />
b Q. arizonica, Q. emoryi, Q. hypoleucoides, <strong>and</strong> Q. rugosa.
Appendix I. Details <strong>of</strong> small-mammal trapping effort, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain District,<br />
2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002.<br />
Number Number<br />
Elevation<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Sprung but <strong>of</strong> animals <strong>of</strong> animals Number <strong>of</strong><br />
stratum Plot group Plot type Visit traps set empty traps captured recaptured trap nights<br />
Low 112 R<strong>and</strong>om 1 126 0 5 1 123.0<br />
2 225 12 43 17 189.0<br />
139 Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 30 0 0 0 30.0<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om 1 189 0 1 0 188.5<br />
2 225 4 6 0 220.0<br />
Lower Rincon Creek Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 225 65 66 20 149.0<br />
Upper Rincon Creek Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 120 15 15 3 104.5<br />
Middle 101 Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 60 0 4 0 58.0<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om 1 189 0 19 3 178.0<br />
2 225 1 27 10 206.0<br />
111 Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 75 0 7 1 71.0<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om 1 105 0 2 0 104.0<br />
121 R<strong>and</strong>om 1 150 0 20 1 139.5<br />
2 150 7 41 20 116.0<br />
189 R<strong>and</strong>om 1 225 0 10 5 217.5<br />
2 150 5 20 10 132.5<br />
Douglas Springs Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 400 36 49 44 335.5<br />
Grass Shack Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 146 1 21 7 131.5<br />
Juniper Basin Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 535 33 18 8 505.5<br />
High 113 R<strong>and</strong>om 1 189 1 15 7 177.5<br />
2 225 3 48 10 194.5<br />
128 R<strong>and</strong>om 1 126 3 14 3 116.0<br />
2 200 4 9 3 192.0<br />
191 R<strong>and</strong>om 1 189 1 0 0 188.5<br />
Italian Spring Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 300 3 57 23 258.5<br />
Manning Camp Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 15 0 5 1 15.0<br />
Spud Rock Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 135 3 14 0 112.0<br />
Spud Rock Spring Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 160 1 36 12 135.5<br />
Appendix J. Summary <strong>of</strong> field effort for bats, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon Mountain<br />
District, 2001 <strong>and</strong> 2002. See text for explanation <strong>of</strong> net hours calculations.<br />
Type <strong>of</strong><br />
Total time total net Net<br />
investigation<br />
Roost<br />
Netting<br />
Stratum<br />
NA<br />
Low<br />
Location<br />
Box Canyon Crevice<br />
Tanque Verde Ridge<br />
Helen’s Dome<br />
Chimenea Creek<br />
Year<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2001<br />
2001<br />
Month/day<br />
05/13<br />
05/23<br />
05/22<br />
05/14<br />
(hours)<br />
NA<br />
NA<br />
NA<br />
6.0<br />
length (m)<br />
18<br />
hours<br />
108.0<br />
Lower Rincon Creek 2001 05/17 8.7 21 182.0<br />
09/16 4.3 5 21.7<br />
09/28 2.9 5 14.6<br />
2002 08/13 6.0 37 222.0<br />
09/30 4.3 19 82.3<br />
Middle Deer Creek 2002<br />
09/18<br />
05/04<br />
4.7<br />
9.5<br />
15<br />
10<br />
70.0<br />
95.0<br />
Wild Horse Canyon 2001 04/30 8.4 10 84.2<br />
05/01 8.3 10 82.5<br />
High Devil’s Bathtub 2001<br />
05/02<br />
09/23<br />
8.5<br />
3.0<br />
10<br />
9<br />
85.0<br />
27.0<br />
Manning Camp Pond 2001 05/19 1.8 9 15.8<br />
05/20 6.5 18 117.0<br />
05/21 6.0 18 108.0<br />
09/22 3.1 9 27.8<br />
09/24 2.8 9 24.8<br />
152
Appendix K. Details <strong>of</strong> infrared-triggered camera effort <strong>and</strong> results, <strong>Saguaro</strong> National Park, Rincon<br />
Mountain District, 1999-2005. Survey effort summarized in Table 6.2.<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om or Camera Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Elevation<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om number camera nights photographs individuals species (m)<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 1 99 91 139 7 940<br />
2 38 28 32 5 919<br />
3 12 6 7 1 920<br />
4 5 16 16 3 846<br />
5 12 16 17 1 860<br />
6 6 7 7 1 849<br />
7 12 12 12 1 866<br />
8 21 27 28 3 943<br />
9 12 20 22 6 844<br />
10 20 9 9 5 968<br />
11 15 23 23 6 863<br />
12 40 27 27 5 935<br />
13 15 31 34 3 957<br />
14 52 68 89 3 982<br />
15 16 12 12 4 948<br />
16 10 10 10 4 980<br />
17 46 33 38 4 997<br />
18 16 2 2 1 954<br />
19 14 18 18 3 1049<br />
20 27 18 24 4 1000<br />
21 113 58 78 8 999<br />
22 51 32 34 5 987<br />
23 19 56 59 4 974<br />
24 21 8 8 4 967<br />
25 5 8 9 2 1082<br />
26 34 47 48 9 973<br />
27 37 45 54 6 960<br />
28 52 23 23 5 954<br />
29 12 4 5 2 967<br />
30 28 37 50 4 965<br />
31 12 16 20 3 958<br />
32 121 79 94 8 958<br />
33 37 21 22 2 960<br />
34 7 7 7 2 973<br />
35 14 17 17 6 1384<br />
36 35 41 41 7 1364<br />
37 9 8 13 2 1143<br />
38 27 25 32 4 1112<br />
39 88 62 78 7 1025<br />
40 47 23 27 9 1029<br />
41 9 10 11 5 1018<br />
42 25 10 10 6 1043<br />
43 30 6 6 4 1034<br />
44 25 19 19 6 1021<br />
45 162 61 71 11 1057<br />
46 211 215 265 10 1061<br />
47 16 8 8 3 1067<br />
48 61 59 99 8 1079<br />
49 12 7 7 2 1023<br />
50 12 12 14 3 1030<br />
51 27 10 12 2 1019<br />
52 15 6 7 3 1868<br />
53 44 6 6 1 1791<br />
54 95 13 13 3 1605<br />
55 12 17 17 7 1603<br />
56 13 4 5 2 2173<br />
56 13 7 7 3 1109<br />
153
R<strong>and</strong>om or Camera Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Elevation<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om number camera nights photographs individuals species (m)<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om 58 43 51 62 8 1028<br />
59 125 26 31 7 1082<br />
60 4 2 2 2 2325<br />
61 12 20 21 7 1039<br />
62 55 16 16 3 2384<br />
63 37 22 28 3 2421<br />
64 32 7 8 3 2573<br />
65 10 3 3 2 2591<br />
66 52 25 25 8 2199<br />
67 49 19 20 9 1862<br />
68 12 2 2 1 1867<br />
69 15 13 13 6 1869<br />
70 13 18 18 3 963<br />
71 17 24 25 3 975<br />
72 40 14 14 6 958<br />
73 59 42 42 9 968<br />
74 42 13 13 3 960<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om 101C 11 6 6 3 1349<br />
101D 11 2 2 2 1372<br />
102C 12 11 15 3 1517<br />
102D 4 2 2 1 1656<br />
102R 12 27 27 2 2085<br />
103C 25 23 23 3 1606<br />
103D 2 12 12 3 1609<br />
103R 9 12 12 3 958<br />
106C 6 11 11 2 1739<br />
106D 14 9 9 1 1592<br />
106R 21 11 11 4 1654<br />
109C 16 17 17 2 1197<br />
109D 2 5 5 1 1164<br />
109R 12 5 5 2 1302<br />
10C 9 8 8 3 1707<br />
10D 7 2 2 2 1778<br />
10R 8 8 8 1 1821<br />
110C 24 10 10 4 1076<br />
110D 24 16 16 3 1085<br />
110R 24 2 2 2 1069<br />
111C 25 16 16 3 1266<br />
111D 25 2 2 1 1249<br />
112C 21 33 33 5 1022<br />
112D 16 3 3 2 1021<br />
112R 16 18 18 4 1002<br />
115C 5 2 2 0 898<br />
115D 16 9 9 3 890<br />
115R 15 7 7 2 930<br />
118C 16 42 47 4 947<br />
118D 17 4 9 3 938<br />
118R 17 23 45 4 966<br />
119C 12 8 24 4 866<br />
119D 11 4 4 2 865<br />
119R 18 10 10 4 869<br />
120D 13 17 17 1 1609<br />
120R 9 2 2 1 1706<br />
121C 1 1 1 1 1442<br />
121D 19 15 17 3 1351<br />
121R 2 5 6 3 1414<br />
122C 17 18 19 1 1215<br />
122R 3 2 2 1 1265<br />
126C 18 8 18 4 1415<br />
126D 41 43 50 5 1283<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om 126R 6 6 21 3 1386<br />
154
R<strong>and</strong>om or Camera Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Elevation<br />
Non-r<strong>and</strong>om number camera nights photographs individuals species (m)<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om 130C 2 38 70 3 1071<br />
130D 14 13 13 3 1095<br />
130R 14 10 10 1 1107<br />
134C 7 16 16 4 1289<br />
134D 16 10 10 4 1739<br />
138C 8 6 6 1 1021<br />
138D 12 4 4 2 1024<br />
138R 12 4 5 1 1048<br />
139C 16 24 24 7 974<br />
139R 15 8 8 3 1008<br />
143C 15 20 21 2 1019<br />
143D 19 15 15 2 873<br />
143R 15 22 22 3 970<br />
144C 10 6 6 3 829<br />
144D 9 5 5 2 827<br />
144R 10 5 5 2 828<br />
148C 18 6 6 1 1536<br />
148D 12 6 6 2 1585<br />
148R 24 10 10 2 1615<br />
15C 14 17 17 3 1553<br />
15D 1 1 1 1 1561<br />
15R 10 10 10 2 1564<br />
16C 3 4 4 1 1502<br />
16D 13 6 6 2 1463<br />
16R 5 9 9 3 1507<br />
18C 14 7 7 3 1380<br />
18D 19 31 31 3 1387<br />
195C 3 14 14 4 981<br />
195D 21 27 31 2 985<br />
195R 24 28 29 4 1005<br />
1C 1 2 2 1 1772<br />
1D 17 23 23 2 1739<br />
1R 15 7 9 1 1914<br />
2C 15 9 12 2 1869<br />
2D 10 18 23 2 1804<br />
2R 17 13 15 2 1838<br />
3C 7 3 3 2 1480<br />
3D 11 9 10 2 1512<br />
3R 3 5 5 1 1519<br />
9R 14 9 9 5 1777<br />
Q-9D 1 1 1 1 2609<br />
Q-12R 7 6 6 4 2417<br />
Q-16R 1 1 1 1 2426<br />
Q-16D 12 12 12 2 2341<br />
Q-18R 12 5 5 1 2279<br />
Q-18D 3 2 2 1 2237<br />
Q-19R 11 3 3 1 2090<br />
Q-19D 4 5 5 2 2154<br />
Q-1R 5 5 5 1 2213<br />
Q-1D 15 10 10 2 2195<br />
Q-20R 12 5 5 2 2348<br />
Q-20D 1 1 1 1 2300<br />
Q-20C 20 7 7 2 2295<br />
Q-25R 4 3 4 1 2160<br />
Q-25D 4 3 3 1 2152<br />
Q-7R 12 3 3 3 2367<br />
Q-9R 18 12 12 4 2568<br />
155
156